Hi,
On 05/17/2018 01:09 PM, Kevin Olbrich wrote:
Hi!
Today I added some new OSDs (nearly doubled) to my luminous cluster.
I then changed pg(p)_num from 256 to 1024 for that pool because it was
complaining about to few PGs. (I noticed that should better have been small
changes).
This is the current status:
health: HEALTH_ERR
336568/1307562 objects misplaced (25.740%)
Reduced data availability: 128 pgs inactive, 3 pgs peering, 1
pg stale
Degraded data redundancy: 6985/1307562 objects degraded
(0.534%), 19 pgs degraded, 19 pgs undersized
107 slow requests are blocked > 32 sec
218 stuck requests are blocked > 4096 sec
data:
pools: 2 pools, 1536 pgs
objects: 638k objects, 2549 GB
usage: 5210 GB used, 11295 GB / 16506 GB avail
pgs: 0.195% pgs unknown
8.138% pgs not active
6985/1307562 objects degraded (0.534%)
336568/1307562 objects misplaced (25.740%)
855 active+clean
517 active+remapped+backfill_wait
107 activating+remapped
31 active+remapped+backfilling
15 activating+undersized+degraded+remapped
4 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
3 unknown
3 peering
1 stale+active+clean
You need to resolve the unknown/peering/activating pgs first. You have
1536 PGs, assuming replication size 3 this make 4608 PG copies. Given 25
OSDs and the heterogenous host sizes, I assume that some OSDs hold more
than 200 PGs. There's a threshold for the number of PGs; reaching this
threshold keeps the OSDs from accepting new PGs.
Try to increase the threshold (mon_max_pg_per_osd /
max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio / osd_max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio, not sure
about the exact one, consult the documentation) to allow more PGs on the
OSDs. If this is the cause of the problem, the peering and activating
states should be resolved within a short time.
You can also check the number of PGs per OSD with 'ceph osd df'; the
last column is the current number of PGs.
OSD tree:
ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF
-1 16.12177 root default
-16 16.12177 datacenter dc01
-19 16.12177 pod dc01-agg01
-10 8.98700 rack dc01-rack02
-4 4.03899 host node1001
0 hdd 0.90999 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000
1 hdd 0.90999 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000
5 hdd 0.90999 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000
2 ssd 0.43700 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000
3 ssd 0.43700 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000
4 ssd 0.43700 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000
-7 4.94899 host node1002
9 hdd 0.90999 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000
10 hdd 0.90999 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000
11 hdd 0.90999 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000
12 hdd 0.90999 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000
6 ssd 0.43700 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000
7 ssd 0.43700 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000
8 ssd 0.43700 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000
-11 7.13477 rack dc01-rack03
-22 5.38678 host node1003
17 hdd 0.90970 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000
18 hdd 0.90970 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000
24 hdd 0.90970 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000
26 hdd 0.90970 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000
13 ssd 0.43700 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000
14 ssd 0.43700 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000
15 ssd 0.43700 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000
16 ssd 0.43700 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000
-25 1.74799 host node1004
19 ssd 0.43700 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000
20 ssd 0.43700 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000
21 ssd 0.43700 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000
22 ssd 0.43700 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000
Crush rule is set to chooseleaf rack and (temporary!) to size 2.
Why are PGs stuck in peering and activating?
"ceph df" shows that only 1,5TB are used on the pool, residing on the hdd's
- which would perfectly fit the crush rule....(?)
Size 2 within the crush rule or size 2 for the two pools?
Regards,
Burkhard
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
