On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:54 AM Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 21.08.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Dan van der Ster: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:45 PM Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > > <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Am 20.08.2018 um 22:38 schrieb Dan van der Ster: > >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > >>> <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Am 20.08.2018 um 21:52 schrieb Sage Weil: > >>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > >>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> since loic seems to have left ceph development and his wunderful crush > >>>>>> optimization tool isn'T working anymore i'm trying to get a good > >>>>>> distribution with the ceph balancer. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sadly it does not work as good as i want. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> # ceph osd df | sort -k8 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> show 75 to 83% Usage which is 8% difference which is too much for me. > >>>>>> I'm optimization by bytes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> # ceph balancer eval > >>>>>> current cluster score 0.005420 (lower is better) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> # ceph balancer eval $OPT_NAME > >>>>>> plan spriebe_2018-08-20_19:36 final score 0.005456 (lower is better) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm unable to optimize further ;-( Is there any chance to optimize > >>>>>> further even in case of more rebelancing? > >>>>> > >>>>> The scoring that the balancer module is doing is currently a hybrid of pg > >>>>> count, bytes, and object count. Picking a single metric might help a bit > >>>>> (as those 3 things are not always perfectly aligned). > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> ok i found a bug in the balancer code which seems to be present in all > >>>> releases. > >>>> > >>>> 861 best_ws = next_ws > >>>> 862 best_ow = next_ow > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> should be: > >>>> > >>>> 861 best_ws = copy.deepcopy(next_ws) > >>>> 862 best_ow = copy.deepcopy(next_ow) > >>>> > >>>> otherwise it does not use the best but the last. > >>> > >>> Interesting... does that change improve things? > >> > >> It fixes the following (mgr debug output): > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.078525 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001180, misplacing 0.000912 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.078574 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Score got > >> worse, taking another step > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.078770 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Balancing root > >> default (pools ['cephstor2']) by bytes > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.156326 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001180, misplacing 0.000912 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.156374 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Score got > >> worse, taking another step > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.156581 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Balancing root > >> default (pools ['cephstor2']) by bytes > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.233818 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001180, misplacing 0.000912 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.233868 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Score got > >> worse, taking another step > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.234043 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Balancing root > >> default (pools ['cephstor2']) by bytes > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.313212 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001180, misplacing 0.000912 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.313714 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Score got > >> worse, trying smaller step 0.000244 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.313887 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Balancing root > >> default (pools ['cephstor2']) by bytes > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.391586 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001152, misplacing 0.001141 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.393374 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Balancing root > >> default (pools ['cephstor2']) by bytes > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.473956 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Step result > >> score 0.001152 -> 0.001180, misplacing 0.000912 > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.474001 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Score got > >> worse, taking another step > >> 2018-08-20 22:33:46.474046 7f2fbc3b6700 0 mgr[balancer] Success, score > >> 0.001155 -> 0.001152 > >> > >> BUT: > >> # ceph balancer eval myplan > >> plan myplan final score 0.001180 (lower is better) > >> > >> So the final plan does NOT contain the expected optimization. The > >> deepcopy fixes it. > >> > >> After: > >> # ceph balancer eval myplan > >> plan myplan final score 0.001152 (lower is better) > >> > > > > OK that looks like a bug. Did you create a tracker or PR? > > No not yet. Should i create a PR on github with the fix? Yeah, probably tracker first (requesting luminous,mimic backports), then a PR on master with "Fixes: tracker..." -- dan > > > -- Dan > > > > > >>> > >>> Also, if most of your data is in one pool you can try ceph balancer > >>> eval <pool-name> > >> > >> Already tried this doesn't help much. > >> > >> Greets, > >> Stefan > >> > >> > >>> -- dan > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm also using this one: > >>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/20665/commits/c161a74ad6cf006cd9b33b40fd7705b67c170615 > >>>> > >>>> to optimize by bytes only. > >>>> > >>>> Greets, > >>>> Stefan _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |