This is the pool
pool 41 'ec82_pool' erasure size 10 min_size 8 crush_rule 1 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 last_change 63794 lfor 21731/21731 flags hashpspool,ec_overwrites stripe_width 32768 application cephfs
removed_snaps [1~5]
removed_snaps [1~5]
Here is the relevant crush rule:
rule ec_pool {
id 1
type erasure
min_size 3
max_size 10
step set_chooseleaf_tries 5
step set_choose_tries 100
step take default class hdd
step choose indep 5 type host
step choose indep 2 type osd
step emit
}
Both OSD 23 and 123 are in the same host. So this change should be perfectly acceptable by the rule set.
Something must be blocking the change, but i can't find anything about it in any logs.
- Kári
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:07 AM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
pg-upmap-items became more strict in v12.2.11 when validating upmaps.
E.g., it now won't let you put two PGs in the same rack if the crush
rule doesn't allow it.
Where are OSDs 23 and 123 in your cluster? What is the relevant crush rule?
-- dan
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:17 PM Kári Bertilsson <karibertils@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am trying to diagnose why upmap stopped working where it was previously working fine.
>
> Trying to move pg 41.1 to 123 has no effect and seems to be ignored.
>
> # ceph osd pg-upmap-items 41.1 23 123
> set 41.1 pg_upmap_items mapping to [23->123]
>
> No rebalacing happens and if i run it again it shows the same output every time.
>
> I have in config
> debug mgr = 4/5
> debug mon = 4/5
>
> Paste from mon & mgr logs. Also output from "ceph osd dump"
> https://pastebin.com/9VrT4YcU
>
>
> I have run "ceph osd set-require-min-compat-client luminous" long time ago. And all servers running ceph have been rebooted numerous times since then.
> But somehow i am still seeing "min_compat_client jewel". I believe that upmap was previously working anyway with that "jewel" line present.
>
> I see no indication in any logs why the upmap commands are being ignored.
>
> Any suggestions on how to debug further or what could be the issue ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
