Hi Eugen, just to add another strangeness observation from long ago: https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg74655.html. I didn't see any reweights in your trees, so its something else. However, there seem to be multiple issues with EC pools and peering. I also want to clarify: > If this is the case, it is possible that this is partly intentional and partly buggy. "Partly intentional" here means the code behaviour changes when you add OSDs to the root outside the rooms and this change is not considered a bug. It is clearly *not* expected as it means you cannot do maintenance on a pool living on a tree A without affecting pools on the same device class living on an unmodified subtree of A. >From a ceph user's point of view everything you observe looks buggy. I would really like to see a good explanation why the mappings in the subtree *should* change when adding OSDs above that subtree as in your case when the expectation for good reasons is that they don't. This would help devising clean procedures for adding hosts when you (and I) want to add OSDs first without any peering and then move OSDs into place to have it happen separate from adding and not a total mess with everything in parallel. Best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Frank Schilder <frans@xxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:32 PM To: Eugen Block Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: unknown PGs after adding hosts in different subtree Hi Eugen, I'm at home now. Could you please check all the remapped PGs that they have no shards on the new OSDs, i.e. its just shuffling around mappings within the same set of OSDs under rooms? If this is the case, it is possible that this is partly intentional and partly buggy. The remapping is then probably intentional and the method I use with a disjoint tree for new hosts prevents such remappings initially (the crush code sees the new OSDs in the root, doesn't use them but their presence does change choice orders resulting in remapped PGs). However, the unknown PGs should clearly not occur. I'm afraid that the peering code has quite a few bugs, I reported something at least similarly weird a long time ago: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56995 and https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/46847. Might even be related. It looks like peering can loose track of PG members in certain situations (specifically after adding OSDs until rebalancing completed). In my cases, I get degraded objects even though everything is obviously still around. Flipping between the crush-maps before/after the change re-discovers everything again. Issue 46847 is long-standing and still unresolved. In case you need to file a tracker, please consider to refer to the two above as well as "might be related" if you deem that they might be related. Best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 _______________________________________________ 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
 |