Hi, thanks for this clarification. I'm running a 7-node-cluster and this risk should be managable. Am 16.03.2020 um 16:57 schrieb Anthony D'Atri: > He means that if eg. you enforce 1 copy of a PG per rack, that any upmaps you enter don’t result in 2 or 3 in the same rack. If your CRUSH poilicy is one copy per *host* the danger is even higher that you could have data become unavailable or even lost in case of a failure. > >> On Mar 16, 2020, at 7:45 AM, Thomas Schneider <74cmonty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Wido, >> >> can you please share some detailed instructions how to do this? >> And what do you mean with "respect your failure domain"? >> >> THX >> >> Am 04.03.2020 um 11:27 schrieb Wido den Hollander: >>> On 3/4/20 11:15 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Ceph balancer is not working correctly; there's an open bug >>>> <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/43752> report, too. >>>> >>>> Until this issue is not solved, I need a workaround because I get more >>>> and more warnings about "nearfull osd(s)". >>>> >>>> Therefore my question is: >>>> How can I forcibly move PGs from full OSD to empty OSD? >>> Yes, you could manually create upmap items to map PGs to a specific OSD >>> and offload another one. >>> >>> This is what the balancer also does. Keep in mind though that you should >>> respect your failure domain (host, rack, etc) when creating these mappings. >>> >>> Wido >>> >>>> THX >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |