Hi Christian, Am 20.09.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Christian Balzer: > 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. so you do it really by hand and use ceph osd crush set weight? Greets, Stefan > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |