Ok, I found an issue I changed a class when OSD was reweighted then weight for this OSD in this class was different that default (current) one And yes - significantly different size caused this problem with degraded and undersized Thanks Janne and Wido for help Jacek śr., 19 lut 2020 o 10:00 Jacek Suchenia <jacek.suchenia@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > Janne > > Thanks for good spot however all of them are 3.53830, that change was left > after some tests to kick CRUSH algorithm > > Jacek > > śr., 19 lut 2020 o 09:47 Janne Johansson <icepic.dz@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > >> Den ons 19 feb. 2020 kl 09:42 skrev Jacek Suchenia < >> jacek.suchenia@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> Hello Wido >>> >>> Sure, here is a rule: >>> -15 s3 3.53830 host kw01sv09.sr1.cr1.lab1~s3 >>> 11 s3 3.53830 osd.11 >>> -17 s3 3.53830 host kw01sv10.sr1.cr1.lab1~s3 >>> 10 s3 3.53830 osd.10 >>> -16 s3 0.01529 host kw01sv11.sr1.cr1.lab1~s3 >>> 0 s3 0.01529 osd.0 >>> >> >> The sizes seem _very_ uneven? Perhaps it figures it can't place another >> PG on osd.0 due to its tiny size, and hence can't form a decent replica=3 >> using it, and it can't form one without it either, since you have only >> those OSDs. >> >> -- >> May the most significant bit of your life be positive. >> > > > -- > Jacek Suchenia > jacek.suchenia@xxxxxxxxx > -- Jacek Suchenia jacek.suchenia@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |