Assuming that the pool is replicated, 512 PGs is pretty low if this is the only substantial pool on the cluster. When you do `ceph osd df`, if this is the only substantial pool, the PGS column at right would average around 12 or 13 which is suuuuper low. > On Feb 13, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Work Ceph <work.ceph.user.mailing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, the bucket that represents the new host is under the ROOT bucket as the others. Also, the OSDs are in the right/expected bucket. > > I am guessing that the problem is the number of PGs. I have 120 OSDs across all hosts, and I guess that 512 PGS, which is what the pool is using, is not enough. I did not change it yet, because I wanted to understand the effect on PG number in Ceph pool usable volume. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:03 PM Anthony D'Atri <anthony.datri@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:anthony.datri@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> Does the new host show up under the proper CRUSH bucket? Do its OSDs? Send `ceph osd tree` please. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hello guys, >> >> > Let's say I have a cluster with 4 nodes with 24 SSDs each, and a >> >> single >> >> > pool that consumes all OSDs of all nodes. After adding another >> >> host, I >> >> > noticed that no extra space was added. Can this be a result of >> >> the >> >> > number >> >> > of PGs I am using? >> >> > >> >> > I mean, when adding more hosts/OSDs, should I always consider >> >> increasing >> >> > the number of PGs from a pool? >> >> > >> >> >> >> ceph osd tree >> >> >> >> shows all up and with correct weight? >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxx> >> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx> >> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |