>On 2/16/19 12:33 AM, David Turner wrote: >> The answer is probably going to be in how big your DB partition is vs >> how big your HDD disk is. From your output it looks like you have a >> 6TB HDD with a 28GB Blocks.DB partition. Even though the DB used >> size isn't currently full, I would guess that at some point since >> this OSD was created that it did fill up and what you're seeing is >> the part of the DB that spilled over to the data disk. This is why >> the official recommendation (that is quite cautious, but cautious >> because some use cases will use this up) for a blocks.db partition is >> 4% of the data drive. For your 6TB disks that's a recommendation of >> 240GB per DB partition. Of course the actual size of the DB needed >> is dependent on your use case. But pretty much every use case for a >> 6TB disk needs a bigger partition than 28GB. > > >My current db size of osd.33 is 7910457344 bytes, and osd.73 is >2013265920+4685037568 bytes. 7544Mbyte (24.56% of db_total_bytes) vs >6388Mbyte (6.69% of db_total_bytes). > >Why osd.33 is not used slow storage at this case? Bluestore/RocksDB will only put the next level up size of DB on flash if the whole size will fit. These sizes are roughly 3GB,30GB,300GB. Anything in-between those sizes are pointless. Only ~3GB of SSD will ever be used out of a 28GB partition. Likewise a 240GB partition is also pointless as only ~30GB will be used. I'm currently running 30GB partitions on my cluster with a mix of 6,8,10TB disks. The 10TB's are about 75% full and use around 14GB, this is on mainly 3x Replica RBD(4MB objects) Nick _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |