Looks like we are still waiting for a merge here ... can anybody help out? Really looking forward for the fix to get merged ... https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47189 https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56650 Thanks ________________________________ Von: Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2022 17:01:34 An: Nicolas FONTAINE Cc: Kilian Ries; ceph-users Betreff: Re: Re: Ceph Stretch Cluster - df pool size (Max Avail) https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56650 There's a PR in progress to resolve this issue now. (Thanks, Prashant!) -Greg On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 7:52 AM Nicolas FONTAINE <n.fontaine@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > We have exactly the same problem. Did you find an answer or should we > open a bug report? > > Sincerely, > > Nicolas. > > Le 23/06/2022 à 11:42, Kilian Ries a écrit : > > Hi Joachim, > > > > > > yes i assigned the stretch rule to the pool (4x replica / 2x min). The rule says that two replicas should be in every datacenter. > > > > > > $ ceph osd tree > > ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF > > -1 62.87799 root default > > -17 31.43900 datacenter site1 > > -15 31.43900 rack b7 > > -3 10.48000 host host01 > > 0 ssd 1.74699 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 1 ssd 1.74699 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 2 ssd 1.74699 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 3 ssd 1.74699 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 4 ssd 1.74699 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 5 ssd 1.74699 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -5 10.48000 host host02 > > 6 ssd 1.74699 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 7 ssd 1.74699 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 8 ssd 1.74699 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 9 ssd 1.74699 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 10 ssd 1.74699 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 11 ssd 1.74699 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -7 10.48000 host host03 > > 12 ssd 1.74699 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 13 ssd 1.74699 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 14 ssd 1.74699 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 15 ssd 1.74699 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 16 ssd 1.74699 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 17 ssd 1.74699 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -18 31.43900 datacenter site2 > > -16 31.43900 rack h2 > > -9 10.48000 host host04 > > 18 ssd 1.74699 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 19 ssd 1.74699 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 20 ssd 1.74699 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 21 ssd 1.74699 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 22 ssd 1.74699 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 23 ssd 1.74699 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -11 10.48000 host host05 > > 24 ssd 1.74699 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 25 ssd 1.74699 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 26 ssd 1.74699 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 27 ssd 1.74699 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 28 ssd 1.74699 osd.28 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 29 ssd 1.74699 osd.29 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -13 10.48000 host host06 > > 30 ssd 1.74699 osd.30 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 31 ssd 1.74699 osd.31 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 32 ssd 1.74699 osd.32 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 33 ssd 1.74699 osd.33 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 34 ssd 1.74699 osd.34 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 35 ssd 1.74699 osd.35 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > > > > > So regarding my calculation it should be > > > > > > (6x Nodes * 6x SSD * 1,8TB) / 4 = 16 TB > > > > > > Is this maybe a bug in the stretch mode that i only get displayed half the size available? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Kilian > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member <joachim.kraftmayer(a)clyso.com> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2022 18:20:59 > > An: Kilian Ries; ceph-users(a)ceph.io > > Betreff: Re: Ceph Stretch Cluster - df pool size (Max Avail) > > > > Hi Kilian, > > > > we do not currently use this mode of ceph clustering. but normally you > > need to assign the crush rule to the pool as well, otherwise it will > > take rule 0 as default. > > > > the following calculation for rule 0 would also work approximately: > > > > (3 Nodes *6 x SSD *1,8TB)/4 = 8,1 TB > > > > hope it helps, Joachim > > > > > > ___________________________________ > > Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member > > > > Am 22.06.22 um 18:09 schrieb Kilian Ries: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> i'm running a ceph stretch cluster with two datacenters. Each of the datacenters has 3x OSD nodes (in total 6x) and 2x monitors. A third monitor is deployed as arbiter node in a third datacenter. > >> > >> > >> Each OSD node has 6x SSDs with 1,8 TB storage - that gives me a total of about 63 TB storage (6x nodes * 6x SSD * 1,8TB = 63TB)c. > >> > >> > >> In stretch mode my pool is configured with replication 4x - and as far as i unterstand this should give me a max pool storage size of ~15TB (63TB / 4 = 15,75TB. But if i run "ceph df" it shows me only the half, about ~7,5TB. > >> > >> > >> > >> $ ceph df > >> > >> --- RAW STORAGE --- > >> > >> CLASS SIZE AVAIL USED RAW USED %RAW USED > >> > >> ssd 63 TiB 63 TiB 35 GiB 35 GiB 0.05 > >> > >> TOTAL 63 TiB 63 TiB 35 GiB 35 GiB 0.05 > >> > >> > >> > >> --- POOLS --- > >> > >> POOL ID PGS STORED OBJECTS USED %USED MAX AVAIL > >> > >> device_health_metrics 1 4 4.4 MiB 36 17 MiB 0 7.5 TiB > >> > >> vm_stretch 2 64 8.2 GiB 2.19k 33 GiB 0.11 7.5 TiB > >> > >> > >> > >> My replication rule is from the ceph documentation: > >> > >> > >> https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/stretch-mode/ > >> > >> > >> rule stretch_rule { > >> > >> id 1 > >> > >> min_size 1 > >> > >> max_size 10 > >> > >> type replicated > >> > >> step take site1 > >> > >> step chooseleaf firstn 2 type host > >> > >> step emit > >> > >> step take site2 > >> > >> step chooseleaf firstn 2 type host > >> > >> step emit > >> > >> } > >> > >> > >> > >> Any idea why ceph shows me only about half the size i should be able to use (with 4x replicaton on the pool) ? > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> > >> Kilian > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |