Hi Frank,
thanks for coming in on this, setting target_max_misplaced_ratio to 1
does not help
Regards,
Martin
On 14.12.22 21:32, Frank Schilder wrote:
Hi Eugen: déjà vu again?
I think the way autoscaler code in the MGRs interferes with operations is extremely confusing.
Could this be the same issue I and somebody else had a while ago? Even though autoscaler is disabled, there are parts of it in the MGR still interfering. One of the essential config options was target_max_misplaced_ratio, which needs to be set to 1 if you want to have all PGs created regardless of how many objects are misplaced.
The thread was https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@xxxxxxx/thread/WST6K5A4UQGGISBFGJEZS4HFL2VVWW32
In addition, the PG splitting will stop if recovery IO is going on (some objects are degraded).
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Martin Buss <mbuss7004@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 14 December 2022 19:32
To: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New pool created with 2048 pg_num not executed
will do, that will take another day or so.
Can this have to do anything with
osd_pg_bits that defaults to 6
some operators seem to be working with 8 or 11
Can you explain what this option means? I could not quite understand
from the documentation.
Thanks!
On 14.12.22 16:11, Eugen Block wrote:
Then I'd suggest to wait until the backfilling is done and then report
back if the PGs are still not created. I don't have information about
the ML admin, sorry.
Zitat von Martin Buss <mbuss7004@xxxxxxxxx>:
that cephfs_data has been autoscaling while filling, the mismatched
numbers are a result of that autoscaling
the cluster status is WARN as there is still some old stuff
backfilling on cephfs_data
The issue is the newly created pool 9 cfs_data, which is stuck at 1152
pg_num
ps: can you help me to get in touch with the list admin so I can get
that post including private info deleted
On 14.12.22 15:41, Eugen Block wrote:
I'm wondering why the cephfs_data pool has mismatching pg_num and
pgp_num:
pool 1 'cephfs_data' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0
object_hash rjenkins pg_num 187 pgp_num 59 autoscale_mode off
Does disabling the autoscaler leave it like that when you disable it
in the middle of scaling? What is the current 'ceph status'?
Zitat von Martin Buss <mbuss7004@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi Eugen,
thanks, sure, below:
pg_num stuck at 1152 and pgp_num stuck at 1024
Regards,
Martin
ceph config set global mon_max_pg_per_osd 400
ceph osd pool create cfs_data 2048 2048 --pg_num_min 2048
pool 'cfs_data' created
pool 1 'cephfs_data' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0
object_hash rjenkins pg_num 187 pgp_num 59 autoscale_mode off
last_change 3099 lfor 0/3089/3096 flags hashpspool,bulk stripe_width
0 target_size_ratio 1 application cephfs
pool 2 'cephfs_metadata' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0
object_hash rjenkins pg_num 16 pgp_num 16 autoscale_mode off
last_change 2942 lfor 0/0/123 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0
pg_autoscale_bias 4 pg_num_min 16 recovery_priority 5 application
cephfs
pool 3 '.mgr' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode off last_change 2943
flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 pg_num_max 32 pg_num_min 1
application mgr
pool 9 'cfs_data' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0
object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1152 pgp_num 1024 pg_num_target 2048
pgp_num_target 2048 autoscale_mode off last_change 3198 lfor
0/0/3198 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 pg_num_min 2048
On 14.12.22 15:10, Eugen Block wrote:
Hi,
are there already existing pools in the cluster? Can you share your
'ceph osd df tree' as well as 'ceph osd pool ls detail'? It sounds
like ceph is trying to stay within the limit of mon_max_pg_per_osd
(default 250).
Regards,
Eugen
Zitat von Martin Buss <mbuss7004@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi,
on quincy, I created a new pool
ceph osd pool create cfs_data 2048 2048
6 hosts 71 osds
autoscaler is off; I find it kind of strange that the pool is
created with pg_num 1152 and pgp_num 1024, mentioning the 2048 as
the new target. I cannot manage to actually make this pool contain
2048 pg_num and 2048 pgp_num.
What config option am I missing that does not allow me to grow the
pool to 2048? Although I specified pg_num and pgp_num be the same,
it is not.
Please some help and guidance.
Thank you,
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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 unsu
_______________________________________________
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
