That seems like it. Thanks a lot Serkan!
On 26 Nov 2019 Tue at 20:08 Serkan Çoban <cobanserkan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe following link helps...
https://www.spinics.net/lists/dev-ceph/msg00795.html
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:17 PM Erdem Agaoglu <erdem.agaoglu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I thought of that but it doesn't make much sense. AFAICT min_size should block IO when i lose 3 osds, but it shouldn't effect the amount of the stored data. Am i missing something?
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:04 AM Konstantin Shalygin <k0ste@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/25/19 6:05 PM, Erdem Agaoglu wrote:
>>
>>
>> What I can't find is the 138,509 G difference between the ceph_cluster_total_used_bytes and ceph_pool_stored_raw. This is not static BTW, checking the same data historically shows we have about 1.12x of what we expect. This seems to make our 1.5x EC overhead a 1.68x overhead in reality. Anyone have any ideas for why this is the case?
>>
>> May be min_size related? Because you are right, 6+3 is a 1.50, but 6+3 (+1) is a your calculated 1.67.
>>
>>
>>
>> k
>
>
>
> --
> erdem agaoglu
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
erdem agaoglu
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
