On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:13, Vasu Kulkarni <vakulkar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:38 AM Rishabh Dave <ridave@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 >> disk size might have a role to play, I changed the number of OSDs to 2 >> each with 20 GB disks and later with 50 GB disks but neither helped. I >> used dnf to install ceph and ceph-deploy to setup the cluster. >> >> I've copied the the cluster status after every attempt here[2] in case >> that helps. Any suggestions about pg_num values I should choose and on >> the pg_num values that would be nice for a user looking forward to get >> quickly started with CephFS? > > Why not recommend this in quick-start for master or from nautilus stable? > https://ceph.com/rados/new-in-nautilus-pg-merging-and-autotuning/ > Although, I could get "active+clean" for all PGs but not HEALTH_OK, it'll mention be great to mention this anyway. Thanks for pointing out. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
