I rewrote the CRUSH tunable docs after struggling to summarize to a customer what the impact would be to migrate a bunch of older clusters to the latest tunables: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/7964 However, after trying to explain the hammer tunables vs the straw_calc_version tunable (which isn't properly part of a tunable profile.. mostly) I think we should change that. To refreshe everyone's memory, right before hammer we discovered a bug in the straw bucket weight calculation that made it screw up with 0-weight or duplicate-weight items. What was slightly wonky was that fixing the bug didn't change the mapping for current buckets *until* you modified one of the weights in the bucket. So, clients didn't need a new feature bit, and you could 'fix' the bug but not incur the data movement until some future time when you happened to touch the bucket. For this reason, we * didn't set straw_calc_version=1 when you changed the crush profile to hammer. * added a crush reweight-all command that would recalculate all teh internal weights, so that the admin could set the tunable and then force all the data movement to happen at a known time (now). * set it to 1 for newly created clusters. The problem is that an old operator may think they are on hammer (and soon jewel) tunables and not realize they are still running with a non-optimal option. Instead, I think we should: * make the hammer profile force it to be 1. * create a separate health warning if it is ever 0 (with the usual mon option to disable the warning). It's still not perfect, but I think it's less likely to make users unhappy than what we currently have. Objections/thoughts? sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |