Fw: Re: Why does "df" on a cephfs not report same free space as "rados df" ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Forgot to reply to the list!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 8:32 AM, David Young <funkypenguin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks David,

"ceph osd df" looks like this:

---------
root@node1:~# ceph osd df
ID CLASS WEIGHT  REWEIGHT SIZE    USE     AVAIL    %USE  VAR  PGS
9   hdd 7.27698  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.3 TiB 1008 GiB 86.47 1.22 122
10   hdd 7.27698  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 66.90 0.94  94
11   hdd 7.27739  0.90002 7.3 TiB 5.4 TiB  1.9 TiB 74.29 1.05 104
12   hdd 7.27698  0.95001 7.3 TiB 5.8 TiB  1.5 TiB 79.64 1.12 115
13   hdd       0        0     0 B     0 B      0 B     0    0  18
40   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.1 TiB  1.2 TiB 83.32 1.17 120
41   hdd 7.27739  0.90002 7.3 TiB 5.6 TiB  1.7 TiB 76.88 1.08 113
42   hdd 7.27739  0.80005 7.3 TiB 6.3 TiB  1.0 TiB 85.98 1.21 123
43   hdd       0        0     0 B     0 B      0 B     0    0  32
44   hdd 7.27739        0     0 B     0 B      0 B     0    0  27
45   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.1 TiB  2.2 TiB 69.44 0.98  98
46   hdd       0        0     0 B     0 B      0 B     0    0  38
47   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.4 TiB  2.9 TiB 60.24 0.85  84
48   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.5 TiB  2.8 TiB 61.66 0.87  85
49   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.7 TiB  2.5 TiB 65.07 0.92  90
50   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.7 TiB  2.6 TiB 64.39 0.91  87
51   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.1 TiB  2.2 TiB 70.22 0.99  95
52   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 66.69 0.94  98
53   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.8 TiB  2.5 TiB 66.33 0.93  97
54   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.3 TiB  3.0 TiB 59.20 0.83  82
0   hdd 7.27699  1.00000 7.3 TiB 3.8 TiB  3.5 TiB 52.34 0.74  71
1   hdd 7.27699  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 67.62 0.95  89
2   hdd 7.27699  0.90002 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 66.69 0.94  81
3   hdd 7.27699  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.7 TiB  2.5 TiB 65.21 0.92  88
4   hdd 7.27699  0.90002 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 67.25 0.95  93
5   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 4.2 TiB  3.0 TiB 58.39 0.82  78
6   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.7 TiB  1.6 TiB 78.35 1.10 105
7   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 71.65 1.01  98
8   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.1 TiB  2.2 TiB 69.92 0.98  94
14   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 5.3 TiB  2.0 TiB 72.46 1.02 100
15   hdd 7.27739  0.85004 7.3 TiB 6.0 TiB  1.2 TiB 82.93 1.17 119
16   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.3 TiB  1.0 TiB 86.11 1.21 117
17   hdd 7.27739  0.85004 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 71.48 1.01 103
18   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 71.43 1.00 100
19   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.0 TiB 72.14 1.01 103
20   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.7 TiB  1.6 TiB 78.13 1.10 110
21   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.2 TiB  1.0 TiB 85.58 1.20 125
22   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 71.71 1.01 103
23   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 6.0 TiB  1.2 TiB 83.04 1.17 110
24   hdd       0  1.00000 7.3 TiB 831 GiB  6.5 TiB 11.15 0.16  13
25   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.3 TiB  978 GiB 86.87 1.22 121
26   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 70.86 1.00 100
27   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.9 TiB  1.4 TiB 80.92 1.14 115
28   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 6.5 TiB  826 GiB 88.91 1.25 121
29   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.2 TiB  2.1 TiB 70.99 1.00  95
30   hdd       0  1.00000 7.3 TiB 2.0 TiB  5.3 TiB 26.99 0.38  33
31   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.6 TiB  2.7 TiB 62.61 0.88  90
32   hdd 7.27739  0.90002 7.3 TiB 5.5 TiB  1.8 TiB 75.65 1.06 107
33   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.7 TiB  1.6 TiB 77.99 1.10 111
34   hdd 7.27739        0     0 B     0 B      0 B     0    0  10
35   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.3 TiB  2.0 TiB 73.16 1.03 106
36   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 6.6 TiB  694 GiB 90.68 1.28 126
37   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 5.5 TiB  1.8 TiB 75.83 1.07 106
38   hdd 7.27739  0.95001 7.3 TiB 6.2 TiB  1.1 TiB 85.02 1.20 115
39   hdd 7.27739  1.00000 7.3 TiB 4.9 TiB  2.4 TiB 67.16 0.94  94
                    TOTAL 400 TiB 266 TiB  134 TiB 71.08
MIN/MAX VAR: 0.16/1.28  STDDEV: 13.96
root@node1:~#
------------

The drives that are weighted zero are "out" pending the completion of the remaining degraded objects after an OSD failure:

-----------
  data:
    pools:   2 pools, 1028 pgs
    objects: 52.15 M objects, 197 TiB
    usage:   266 TiB used, 134 TiB / 400 TiB avail
    pgs:     477114/260622045 objects degraded (0.183%)
             10027396/260622045 objects misplaced (3.847%)
----------------------




‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 7:23 AM, David C <dcsysengineer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, 02:20 David Young <funkypenguin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi folks,

My ceph cluster is used exclusively for cephfs, as follows:

---
root@node1:~# grep ceph /etc/fstab
node2:6789:/ /ceph ceph auto,_netdev,name=admin,secretfile=/root/ceph.admin.secret
root@node1:~#
---

"rados df" shows me the following:

---
root@node1:~# rados df
POOL_NAME          USED  OBJECTS CLONES    COPIES MISSING_ON_PRIMARY UNFOUND DEGRADED    RD_OPS      RD    WR_OPS      WR
cephfs_metadata 197 MiB    49066      0     98132                  0       0        0   9934744  55 GiB  57244243 232 GiB
media           196 TiB 51768595      0 258842975                  0       1   203534 477915206 509 TiB 165167618 292 TiB

total_objects    51817661
total_used       266 TiB
total_avail      135 TiB
total_space      400 TiB
root@node1:~#
---

But "df" on the mounted cephfs volume shows me:

---
root@node1:~# df -h /ceph
Filesystem          Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
10.20.30.22:6789:/  207T  196T   11T  95% /ceph
root@node1:~#
---

And ceph -s shows me:

---
  data:
    pools:   2 pools, 1028 pgs
    objects: 51.82 M objects, 196 TiB
    usage:   266 TiB used, 135 TiB / 400 TiB avail
---

"media" is an EC pool with size of 5 (4+1), so I can expect 1TB of data to consume 1.25TB raw space.

My question is, why does "df" show me I have 11TB free, when "rados df" shows me I have 135TB (raw) available?

Probabaly because your OSDs are quite unbalanced.  What does your 'ceph osd df' look like? 




Thanks!
D

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list


_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]

  Powered by Linux