Hi Josh, Okay, but do you agree that for any given pool, the load is uniform across it's PGs, right? Doesn't the existing mgr balancer already balance the PGs for each pool individually? So in your example, the PGs from the loaded pool will be balanced across all osds, as will the idle pool's PGs. So the net load is uniform, right? OTOH I could see a workload/capacity imbalance if there are mixed capacity but equal performance devices (e.g. a cluster with 50% 6TB HDDs and 50% 12TB HDDs). In that case we're probably better to treat the disks as uniform in size until the smaller osds fill up. .. Dan On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, 22:09 Josh Salomon, <jsalomon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Assume you have 2 pools with the same used capacity and the same number of > PGs, one gets 10x the IOs than the other. From capacity balancing > perspectives all the PGs look identical, but devices with PGs from one pool > will get 10% of the IOs as devices with PGs only from the second pool. > Under load almost all the load will go to the latter devices while the > former will be almost idle, which makes very bad use of the cluster > bandwidth. > This is an extreme case, but even in the case that the PGs are blended but > not ideally (even one device has more PGs from the loaded pool and it is > not split 50-50) we get weakest link in the chain effect on that pool and > under load it will provide less than optimal bandwidth from the cluster. > > IMHO it should be correct also when the cluster is almost full and not > limited to half full clusters. > > I do agree with the observation of bad +1 PG splits among the OSDs and I > believe this should be fixed. I am not sure I fully understood the huge > node use case, if every PG has an OSD in a single node and still it is > under utilized, I don't see how we can improve on this without sacrificing > the reliability (by putting 2 copies on the same node). > > Josh > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:56 PM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Hi Josh, >> >> That's another interesting dimension... >> Indeed a cluster that has plenty of free capacity could indeed be >> balanced by workload/iops, but once it reaches maybe 60 or 70% full, then I >> think capacity would need to take priority. >> >> But to be honest I don't really understand the workload/iops balancing >> use-case. Can you describe some of the scenarios you have in mind? >> >> .. Dan >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, 20:45 Josh Salomon, <jsalomon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Just another point of view: >>> The current balancer balances the capacity but this is not enough. The >>> balancer should also balance the workload and we plan on adding primary >>> balancing for Quincy. In order to balance the workload you should work pool >>> by pool because pools have different workloads. So while the observation >>> about the +1 PGs is correct, I believe the correct solution should be >>> talking this into consideration while still balancing capacity pool by pool. >>> Capacity balancing is a functional requirement, while workload balancing >>> is a performance requirement so it is important only for very loaded >>> systems (loaded in terms of high IOPS not nearly full systems) >>> >>> I would appreciate comments on this thought. >>> >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, 20:57 Dan van der Ster, <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jonas, >>>> >>>> From your readme: >>>> >>>> "the best possible solution is some OSDs having an offset of 1 PG to >>>> the ideal count. As a PG-distribution-optimization is done per pool, >>>> without checking other pool's distribution at all, some devices will be the >>>> +1 more often than others. At worst one OSD is the +1 for each pool in the >>>> cluster." >>>> >>>> That's an interesting observation/flaw which hadn't occurred to me >>>> before. I think we don't ever see it in practice in our clusters because we >>>> do not have multiple large pools on the same osds. >>>> >>>> How large are the variances in your real clusters? I hope the example >>>> in your readme isn't from real life?? >>>> >>>> Cheers, Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, 15:11 Jonas Jelten, <jelten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> I've been working on this for quite some time now and I think it's >>>>> ready for some broader testing and feedback. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/TheJJ/ceph-balancer >>>>> >>>>> It's an alternative standalone balancer implementation, optimizing for >>>>> equal OSD storage utilization and PG placement across all pools. >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't change your cluster in any way, it just prints the commands >>>>> you can run to apply the PG movements. >>>>> Please play around with it :) >>>>> >>>>> Quickstart example: generate 10 PG movements on hdd to stdout >>>>> >>>>> ./placementoptimizer.py -v balance --max-pg-moves 10 >>>>> --only-crushclass hdd | tee /tmp/balance-upmaps >>>>> >>>>> When there's remapped pgs (e.g. by applying the above upmaps), you can >>>>> inspect progress with: >>>>> >>>>> ./placementoptimizer.py showremapped >>>>> ./placementoptimizer.py showremapped --by-osd >>>>> >>>>> And you can get a nice Pool and OSD usage overview: >>>>> >>>>> ./placementoptimizer.py show --osds --per-pool-count >>>>> --sort-utilization >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course there's many more features and optimizations to be added, >>>>> but it served us very well in reclaiming terrabytes of until then >>>>> unavailable storage already where the `mgr balancer` could no longer >>>>> optimize. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> -- Jonas >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |