Re: Can I remove rbd pool and re-create it?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Op 29 juli 2016 om 13:20 schreef Chengwei Yang <chengwei.yang.cn@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> 
> Hi Christian,
> 
> Thanks for your reply, and since I do really don't like the HEALTH_WARN and it
> not allowed to decrease pg_num of a pool.
> 
> So can I just remove the default **rbd** pool and re-create it by using `ceph osd
> pool create`?
> 

Yes, you can.

> If so, is there anything I have to pay attention to?
> 

Your data! Are you sure there is no data in the pool? If so, make sure you back that up first. Otherwise you can remove the pool and re-create it. The pool is not required, so if you don't use it you can also just remove it.

Wido

> Thanks in advance!
> 
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:47:59AM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:59:38 +0800 Chengwei Yang wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi list,
> > > 
> > > I just followed the placement group guide to set pg_num for the rbd pool.
> > > 
> > How many other pools do you have, or is that the only pool?
> > 
> > The numbers mentioned are for all pools, not per pool, something that
> > isn't abundantly clear from the documentation either.
> > 
> > >   "
> > >   Less than 5 OSDs set pg_num to 128
> > >   Between 5 and 10 OSDs set pg_num to 512
> > >   Between 10 and 50 OSDs set pg_num to 4096
> > >   If you have more than 50 OSDs, you need to understand the tradeoffs and how to
> > >   calculate the pg_num value by yourself
> > >   For calculating pg_num value by yourself please take help of pgcalc tool
> > >   "
> > > 
> > You should have headed the hint about pgcalc, which is by far the best
> > thing to do.
> > The above numbers are an (imprecise) attempt to give a quick answer to a
> > complex question.
> > 
> > > Since I have 40 OSDs, so I set pg_num to 4096 according to the above
> > > recommendation.
> > > 
> > > However, after configured pg_num and pgp_num both to 4096, I found that my
> > > ceph cluster in **HEALTH_WARN** status, which does surprised me and still
> > > confusing me.
> > > 
> > PGcalc would recommend 2048 PGs at most (for a single pool) with 40 OSDs.
> > 
> > I assume the above high number of 4096 stems from the wisdom that with
> > small clusters more PGs than normally recommended (100 per OSD) can be
> > helpful. 
> > It was also probably written before those WARN calculations were added to
> > Ceph.
> > 
> > The above would better read:
> > ---
> > Use PGcalc!
> > [...]
> > Between 10 and 20 OSDs set pg_num to 1024
> > Between 20 and 40 OSDs set pg_num to 2048
> > 
> > Over 40 definitely use and understand PGcalc.
> > ---
> > 
> > > >   cluster bf6fa9e4-56db-481e-8585-29f0c8317773
> > >      health HEALTH_WARN
> > >             too many PGs per OSD (307 > max 300)
> > > 
> > > I see the cluster also says "4096 active+clean" so it's safe, but I do not like
> > > the HEALTH_WARN in anyway.
> > >
> > You can ignore it, but yes, it is annoying.
> >  
> > > As I know(from ceph -s output), the recommended pg_num per OSD is [30, 300], any
> > > other pg_num out of this range with bring cluster to HEALTH_WARN.
> > > 
> > > So what I would like to say: is the document misleading? Should we fix it?
> > > 
> > Definitely.
> > 
> > Christian
> > -- 
> > Christian Balzer        Network/Systems Engineer                
> > chibi@xxxxxxx   	Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications
> > http://www.gol.com/
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Chengwei
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux