Hello, This and the non-permanence of reweight is why I use CRUSH reweight (a more distinct naming would be VERY helpful, too) and do it manually, which tends to beat all the automated approaches so far. Christian On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:49:50 +0200 Dan van der Ster wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > What's the current reweight value for osd.110? It cannot be increased above 1. > > Cheers, Dan > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > while using ceph hammer i saw in the doc of ceph reweight-by-utilization > > that there is a --no-increasing flag. I do not use it but never saw an > > increased weight value even some of my osds are really empty. > > > > Example: > > 821G 549G 273G 67% /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-110 > > > > vs. > > > > 821G 767G 54G 94% /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-13 > > > > I would expect that ceph reweight-by-utilization increases osd.110 > > weight value but instead it still lowers other osds. > > > > Greets, > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |