Hi Muhammad,
Yes, that tool helps! Thank you for pointing it out!
With a combination of openSeaChest_Info and smartctl I was able to
extract the following stats of our cluster, and the numbers are very
surprising to me. I hope someone here can explain the what we see below:
node1 AnnualWrkload Read Written Power On Hours
osd0 93.14 318.79 19.48 31815.65
osd1 94.38 322.67 20.11 31815.42
osd2 41.08 38.95 11.33 10722.47 new disk
osd3 94.56 323.98 19.45 31815.35
osd12 124.20 340.11 20.09 25406.73
osd13 112.43 308.18 17.88 25405.72
sdb14 120.67 330.96 19.01 25405.65
osd15 105.59 287.78 18.45 25405.90
ssd journal 0.46 1643.58 31813.00
node2
osd4 697.75 2390 151.23 31864.88 (2.39PB)
osd5 677.74 2320 144.94 31864.68 (2.32PB)
osd6 687.13 2340 157.11 31865.05 (2.34PB)
osd7 619.19 2100 151.08 31864.67 (2.10PB)
osd16 827.57 2260 142.81 25405.93 (2.26PB)
osd17 996.03 2720 167.97 25405.87 (2.72PB)
osd18 809.36 2210 137.96 25405.82 (2.21PB)
osd19 844.06 2300 146.84 25405.90 (2.30PB)
ssd journal 0.46 1637.60 31862.00
node3
osd8 75.30 258.79 14.67 31813.67
osd9 77.30 264.87 15.85 31813.68
osd10 82.32 282.43 16.53 31813.60
osd11 82.26 282.72 16.01 31813.73
osd20 96.86 265.25 15.65 25404.37
osd21 93.18 256.11 14.12 25404.22
osd22 108.43 298.29 16.15 25404.23
osd23 30.80 33.61 10.78 12625.07 new disk
ssd journal 0.46 1644.83 31811.00
AnnualWrkload = Annualized Workload Rate (TB/year)
Read = Total Bytes Read (TB)
Written = Total Bytes Written (TB)
Power On Hours = hours the drive has been used
From the numbers above, it seems the OSDs on node2 are used INCREDIBLY
much more than those on the other two nodes. The numbers for node2 are
even reported in PB, and the other nodes in TB. (converted to TB using
https://www.gbmb.org/pb-to-tb, to make sure there are no conversion errors)
However, SSD journal usage across the three nodes looks similar.
All OSDs have the same weight:
root@node2:~# ceph osd tree
ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF
-1 87.35376 root default
-2 29.11688 host pm1
0 hdd 3.64000 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000
1 hdd 3.64000 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000
2 hdd 3.63689 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000
3 hdd 3.64000 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000
12 hdd 3.64000 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000
13 hdd 3.64000 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000
14 hdd 3.64000 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000
15 hdd 3.64000 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000
-3 29.12000 host pm2
4 hdd 3.64000 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000
5 hdd 3.64000 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000
6 hdd 3.64000 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000
7 hdd 3.64000 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000
16 hdd 3.64000 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000
17 hdd 3.64000 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000
18 hdd 3.64000 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000
19 hdd 3.64000 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000
-4 29.11688 host pm3
8 hdd 3.64000 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000
9 hdd 3.64000 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000
10 hdd 3.64000 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000
11 hdd 3.64000 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000
20 hdd 3.64000 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000
21 hdd 3.64000 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000
22 hdd 3.64000 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000
23 hdd 3.63689 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000
Disk usage also looks ok:
root@pm2:~# ceph osd df
ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE USE AVAIL %USE VAR PGS
0 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.01TiB 1.62TiB 55.34 0.98 137
1 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.09TiB 1.54TiB 57.56 1.02 141
2 hdd 3.63689 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.92TiB 1.72TiB 52.79 0.94 128
3 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.07TiB 1.57TiB 56.90 1.01 143
12 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.15TiB 1.48TiB 59.18 1.05 138
13 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.99TiB 1.64TiB 54.80 0.97 131
14 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.93TiB 1.70TiB 53.13 0.94 127
15 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.19TiB 1.45TiB 60.10 1.07 143
4 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.11TiB 1.53TiB 57.97 1.03 142
5 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.97TiB 1.67TiB 54.11 0.96 134
6 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.12TiB 1.51TiB 58.40 1.04 142
7 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.97TiB 1.66TiB 54.28 0.97 128
16 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.00TiB 1.64TiB 54.90 0.98 133
17 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.33TiB 1.30TiB 64.14 1.14 153
18 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.97TiB 1.67TiB 54.07 0.96 132
19 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.89TiB 1.75TiB 51.94 0.92 124
8 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.79TiB 1.85TiB 49.24 0.88 123
9 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.17TiB 1.46TiB 59.72 1.06 144
10 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.40TiB 1.24TiB 65.88 1.17 157
11 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.06TiB 1.58TiB 56.64 1.01 133
20 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.19TiB 1.45TiB 60.23 1.07 148
21 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.74TiB 1.90TiB 47.80 0.85 115
22 hdd 3.64000 1.00000 3.64TiB 2.05TiB 1.59TiB 56.27 1.00 138
23 hdd 3.63689 1.00000 3.64TiB 1.96TiB 1.67TiB 54.01 0.96 130
TOTAL 87.3TiB 49.1TiB 38.2TiB 56.23
MIN/MAX VAR: 0.85/1.17 STDDEV: 4.08
The cluster is HEALTH_OK and seems to be working fine.
When comparing "iostat -x 1" between node2 and the other two, we see
similar %util for all OSDs across all nodes.
How can the reported disk stats for node2 be SO different than the other
two nodes, whereas for the rest everything seems to be running as it should?
Or are we missing something?
Thanks!
MJ
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
