Yes, I think that’s exactly the reason. As soon as the cluster has
more space the backfill will continue.
Zitat von Mac Wynkoop <mwynkoop@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The cluster is currently in a warn state, here's the scrubbed output of
> ceph -s:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *cluster: id: *redacted* health: HEALTH_WARN
> noscrub,nodeep-scrub flag(s) set 22 nearfull osd(s)
2
> pool(s) nearfull Low space hindering backfill (add storage if
> this doesn't resolve itself): 277 pgs backfill_toofull
Degraded
> data redundancy: 32652738/3651947772 objects degraded (0.894%), 281 pgs
> degraded, 341 pgs undersized 1214 pgs not deep-scrubbed in
time
> 2647 pgs not scrubbed in time 2 daemons have
recently
> crashed services: mon: 5 daemons, *redacted* (age 44h)
mgr:
> *redacted* osd: 162 osds: 162 up (since 44h), 162 in
> (since 4d); 971 remapped pgs flags noscrub,nodeep-scrub
> rgw: 3 daemons active *redacted* tcmu-runner: 18 daemons
active
> *redacted* data: pools: 10 pools, 2648 pgs objects: 409.56M
> objects, 738 TiB usage: 1.3 PiB used, 580 TiB / 1.8 PiB avail
pgs:
> 32652738/3651947772 objects degraded (0.894%)
> 517370913/3651947772 objects misplaced (14.167%) 1677
> active+clean 477 active+remapped+backfill_wait
100
> active+remapped+backfill_wait+backfill_toofull 80
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait 60
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait+backfill_toofull
> 42 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_toofull
33
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling 25
> active+remapped+backfilling 25
> active+remapped+backfill_toofull 24
> active+undersized+remapped+backfilling 23
> active+forced_recovery+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait
> 19
>
active+forced_recovery+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait+backfill_toofull
> 15 active+undersized+remapped+backfill_wait 14
> active+undersized+remapped+backfill_wait+backfill_toofull 12
> active+forced_recovery+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_toofull
> 12 active+forced_recovery+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
> 5 active+undersized+remapped+backfill_toofull 3
> active+remapped 1 active+undersized+remapped
1
> active+forced_recovery+undersized+remapped+backfilling io:
client:
> 287 MiB/s rd, 40 MiB/s wr, 1.94k op/s rd, 165 op/s wr recovery: 425
> MiB/s, 225 objects/s*
> Now as you can see, we do have a lot of backfill operations going on at
the
> moment. Does that actually prevent Ceph from modifying the pgp_num value
of
> a pool?
>
> Thanks,
> Mac Wynkoop
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 8:57 AM Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> What is the current cluster status, is it healthy? Maybe increasing
>> pg_num would hit the limit of mon_max_pg_per_osd? Can you share 'ceph
>> -s' output?
>>
>>
>> Zitat von Mac Wynkoop <mwynkoop@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> > Right, both Norman and I set the pg_num before the pgp_num. For
example,
>> > here is my current pool settings:
>> >
>> >
>> > *"pool 40 '*redacted*.rgw.buckets.data' erasure size 9 min_size 7
>> > crush_rule 2 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 2048 pgp_num 1024
pgp_num_target
>> > 2048 last_change 8458830 lfor 0/0/8445757 flags
>> > hashpspool,ec_overwrites,nodelete,backfillfull stripe_width 24576
>> fast_read
>> > 1 application rgw"*
>> > So, when I set:
>> >
>> > "*ceph osd pool set hou-ec-1.rgw.buckets.data pgp_num 2048*"
>> >
>> > it returns:
>> >
>> > "*set pool 40 pgp_num to 2048*"
>> >
>> > But upon checking the pool details again:
>> >
>> > "*pool 40 '*redacted*.rgw.buckets.data' erasure size 9 min_size 7
>> > crush_rule 2 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 2048 pgp_num 1024
pgp_num_target
>> > 2048 last_change 8458870 lfor 0/0/8445757 flags
>> > hashpspool,ec_overwrites,nodelete,backfillfull stripe_width 24576
>> fast_read
>> > 1 application rgw*"
>> >
>> > and the pgp_num value does not increase. Am I just doing something
>> > totally wrong?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mac Wynkoop
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:32 PM Marc Roos <M.Roos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> pg_num and pgp_num need to be the same, not?
>> >>
>> >> 3.5.1. Set the Number of PGs
>> >>
>> >> To set the number of placement groups in a pool, you must specify the
>> >> number of placement groups at the time you create the pool. See
Create a
>> >> Pool for details. Once you set placement groups for a pool, you can
>> >> increase the number of placement groups (but you cannot decrease the
>> >> number of placement groups). To increase the number of placement
groups,
>> >> execute the following:
>> >>
>> >> ceph osd pool set {pool-name} pg_num {pg_num}
>> >>
>> >> Once you increase the number of placement groups, you must also
increase
>> >> the number of placement groups for placement (pgp_num) before your
>> >> cluster will rebalance. The pgp_num should be equal to the pg_num. To
>> >> increase the number of placement groups for placement, execute the
>> >> following:
>> >>
>> >> ceph osd pool set {pool-name} pgp_num {pgp_num}
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_ceph_storage/4/html/storage_strategies_guide/placement_groups_pgs
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> To: norman
>> >> Cc: ceph-users
>> >> Subject: Re: pool pgp_num not updated
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I'm seeing a similar issue here. Any ideas on this?
>> >> Mac Wynkoop,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 11:09 PM norman <norman.kern@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> >
>> >> > When I update the pg_num of a pool, I found it not worked(no
>> >> > rebalanced), anyone know the reason? Pool's info:
>> >> >
>> >> > pool 21 'openstack-volumes-rs' replicated size 3 min_size 2
crush_rule
>> >> > 21 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1024 pgp_num 512 pgp_num_target 1024
>> >> > autoscale_mode warn last_change 85103 lfor 82044/82044/82044 flags
>> >> > hashpspool,nodelete,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application
rbd
>> >> > removed_snaps
>> >> > [1~1e6,1e8~300,4e9~18,502~3f,542~11,554~1a,56f~1d7]
>> >> > pool 22 'openstack-vms-rs' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule
22
>> >> > object_hash rjenkins pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 pg_num_target 256
>> >> > pgp_num_target 256 autoscale_mode warn last_change 84769 lfor
>> >> > 0/0/55294 flags hashpspool,nodelete,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width
>> >> > application rbd
>> >> >
>> >> > The pgp_num_target is set, but pgp_num not set.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have scale out new OSDs and is backfilling before setting the
value,
>> >>
>> >> > is it the reason?
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
>>
