Hi List,
I'm playing around with CRUSH rules and device classes and I'm puzzled
if it's working correctly. Platform specifics: Ubuntu Bionic with Ceph 14.2.1
I created two new device classes "cheaphdd" and "fasthdd". I made
sure these device classes are applied to the right OSDs and that the
(shadow) crush rule is correctly filtering the right classes for the
OSDs (ceph osd crush tree --show-shadow).
I then created two new crush rules:
ceph osd crush rule create-replicated fastdisks default host fasthdd
ceph osd crush rule create-replicated cheapdisks default host cheaphdd
# rules
rule replicated_rule {
id 0
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take default
step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
step emit
}
rule fastdisks {
id 1
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take default class fasthdd
step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
step emit
}
rule cheapdisks {
id 2
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take default class cheaphdd
step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
step emit
}
After that I put the cephfs_metadata on the fastdisks CRUSH rule:
ceph osd pool set cephfs_metadata crush_rule fastdisks
Some data is moved to new osds, but strange enough there is still data on PGs
residing on OSDs in the "cheaphdd" class. I confirmed this with:
ceph pg ls-by-pool cephfs_data
Testing CRUSH rule nr. 1 gives me:
crushtool -i /tmp/crush_raw --test --show-mappings --rule 1 --min-x 1 --max-x 4 --num-rep 3
CRUSH rule 1 x 1 [0,3,6]
CRUSH rule 1 x 2 [3,6,0]
CRUSH rule 1 x 3 [0,6,3]
CRUSH rule 1 x 4 [0,6,3]
Which are indeed the OSDs in the fasthdd class.
Why is not all data moved to OSDs 0,3,6, but still spread on OSDs on the
cheaphhd class as well?
Thanks,
Stefan
--
| BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/ Kamer van Koophandel 09090351
| GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / info@xxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
