> -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Fedotov [mailto:ifedotov@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 19 October 2018 01:03 > To: nick@xxxxxxxxxx; ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: slow_used_bytes - SlowDB being used despite lots of space free in BlockDB on SSD? > > > > On 10/18/2018 7:49 PM, Nick Fisk wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ceph Version = 12.2.8 > > 8TB spinner with 20G SSD partition > > > > Perf dump shows the following: > > > > "bluefs": { > > "gift_bytes": 0, > > "reclaim_bytes": 0, > > "db_total_bytes": 21472731136, > > "db_used_bytes": 3467640832, > > "wal_total_bytes": 0, > > "wal_used_bytes": 0, > > "slow_total_bytes": 320063143936, > > "slow_used_bytes": 4546625536, > > "num_files": 124, > > "log_bytes": 11833344, > > "log_compactions": 4, > > "logged_bytes": 316227584, > > "files_written_wal": 2, > > "files_written_sst": 4375, > > "bytes_written_wal": 204427489105, > > "bytes_written_sst": 248223463173 > > > > Am I reading that correctly, about 3.4GB used out of 20GB on the SSD, yet 4.5GB of DB is stored on the spinning disk? > Correct. Most probably the rationale for this is the layered scheme RocksDB uses to keep its sst. For each level It has a maximum > threshold (determined by level no, some base value and corresponding multiplier - see max_bytes_for_level_base & > max_bytes_for_level_multiplier at > https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/RocksDB-Tuning-Guide) > If the next level (at its max size) doesn't fit into the space available at DB volume - it's totally spilled over to slow device. > IIRC level_base is about 250MB and multiplier is 10 so the third level needs 25Gb and hence doesn't fit into your DB volume. > > In fact DB volume of 20GB is VERY small for 8TB OSD - just 0.25% of the slow one. AFAIR current recommendation is about 4%. > > > Thanks Igor, these nodes were designed back in the filestore days where Small 10DWPD SSD's were all the rage, I might be able to shrink the OS/swap partition and get each DB partition up to 25/26GB, they are not going to get any bigger than that as that’s the NVME completely filled. But I'm then going have to effectively wipe all the disks I've done so far and re-backfill. ☹ Are there any tunables to change this behaviour post OSD deployment to move data back onto SSD? On a related note, does frequently accessed data move into the SSD, or is the overspill a one way ticket? I would assume writes would cause data in rocksdb to be written back into L0 and work its way down, but I'm not sure about reads? This is from a similar slightly newer node with 10TB spinners and 40G partition "bluefs": { "gift_bytes": 0, "reclaim_bytes": 0, "db_total_bytes": 53684985856, "db_used_bytes": 10380902400, "wal_total_bytes": 0, "wal_used_bytes": 0, "slow_total_bytes": 400033841152, "slow_used_bytes": 0, "num_files": 165, "log_bytes": 15683584, "log_compactions": 8, "logged_bytes": 384712704, "files_written_wal": 2, "files_written_sst": 11317, "bytes_written_wal": 564218701044, "bytes_written_sst": 618268958848 So I see your point about the 25G file size making it over spill the partition, as it obvious in this case that the 10G of DB used is completely stored on the SSD. Theses OSD's are about 70% full, so I'm not expecting a massive increase in usage. Albeit if I move to EC pools, I should expect maybe a doubling in objects, so maybe that db_used might double, but it should still be within the 40G hopefully. The 4% rule would not be workable in my case, there are 12X10TB disks in these nodes, I would nearly 5TB worth of SSD, which would likely cost a similar amount to the whole node+disks. I get the fact that any recommendations need to take the worse case into account, but I would imagine for a lot of simple RBD only use cases, this number is quite inflated. So I think the lesson from this is that despite whatever DB usage you may think you may end up with, always make sure your SSD partition is bigger than 26GB (L0+L1)? > > Am I also understanding correctly that BlueFS has reserved 300G of space on the spinning disk? > Right. > > Found a previous bug tracker for something which looks exactly the same case, but should be fixed now: > > https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/22264 > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
 |