On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:31, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Rishabh Dave wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While working on CephFS Quick Start guide[1], the major issue that I
> > came across was choosing the value for pg_num for the pools that will
> > serve CephFS. I've tried the values from 4 to 128 for both data and
> > metadata pools and have always got "undersized+peered" instead of
> > "active+clean". Copying pg_num values from the cluster setup by
> > vstart.sh (8 for data and 16 for metadata pools) gave me the same
> > result.
> >
> > About the cluster: I had a single node running Fedora 29 with 1 MON, 1
> > MGR, 1 MDS and 3 OSDs each with a disk size of 10 GB. Thinking that
>
> This is unrelated to the PGs or the capacity--the problem is that you have
> a single node, and the default CRUSH rule replicates across hosts.
> That's why your pools are unhealthy.
>
> You can fix this by creating a new crush rule with 'osd' instead of
> 'host' as the failure domain, and then setting your pool(s) to use that
> rule.
>
> osd crush rule create-replicated <name> <root> create crush rule <name> for replicated pool to
> <type> {<class>} start from <root>, replicate across buckets of
> type <type>, use devices of type <class> (ssd
> or hdd)
>
> osd pool set <poolname> crush_rule <rule-name>
>
> sage
>
Both, setting the new crush rule to pools and creating OSDs on
separate nodes worked. Thanks!
However, in both cases the PG status wasn't "active+clean". It was "54
active+undersized" and "10 active+undersized+degraded". IMO, it would
ideal for CephFS Quick Start guide to lead to "active+clean". Is there
anything more that can be done and would be suitable for the guide?
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
