When you increase the number of PGs, don't just go to the max value. Step into it. You'll want to end up around 2048, so do 400 -> 512, wait for it to finish, -> 1024, wait, -> 2048.

Also remember that you don't need a lot of PGs if you don't have much data in the pools. My .rgw.buckets pool has 2k PGs, but the the RGW metadata pools only have a couple MB and 32 PGs each.


*Craig Lewis*
Senior Systems Engineer
Office +1.714.602.1309
Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

*Central Desktop. Work together in ways you never thought possible.*
Connect with us Website <http://www.centraldesktop.com/> | Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/centraldesktop> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/CentralDesktop> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=147417> | Blog <http://cdblog.centraldesktop.com/>

On 4/18/14 05:04 , Tyler Brekke wrote:
That is rather low, increasing the pg count should help with the data distribution.

Documentation recommends starting with (100 * (num of osds)) /(replicas) rounded up to the nearest power of two.

https://ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/placement-groups/



On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Kenneth Waegeman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


    ----- Message from Tyler Brekke <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> ---------
       Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:37:26 -0700
       From: Tyler Brekke <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD distribution unequally
         To: Dan Van Der Ster <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
         Cc: Kenneth Waegeman <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>, ceph-users
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>



        How many placement groups do you have in your pool containing
        the data, and
        what is the replication level of that pool?


    400 pgs per pool, replication factor is 3



        Looks like you have too few placement groups which is causing
        the data
        distribution to be off.

        -Tyler


        On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Dan Van Der Ster
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

            wrote:


             ceph osd reweight-by-utilization

            Is that still in 0.79?

            I'd start with reweight-by-utilization 200 and then adjust
            that number
            down until you get to 120 or so.

            Cheers, Dan
            On Apr 18, 2014 12:49 PM, Kenneth Waegeman
            <[email protected]>
            wrote:
              Hi,

            Some osds of our cluster filled up:
                  health HEALTH_ERR 1 full osd(s); 4 near full osd(s)
                  monmap e1: 3 mons at
            {ceph001=
            
10.141.8.180:6789/0,ceph002=10.141.8.181:6789/0,ceph003=10.141.8.182:6789/0
            
<http://10.141.8.180:6789/0,ceph002=10.141.8.181:6789/0,ceph003=10.141.8.182:6789/0>},
            election epoch 96, quorum 0,1,2
            ceph001,ceph002,ceph003
                  mdsmap e93: 1/1/1 up
            {0=ceph001.cubone.os=up:active}, 1 up:standby
                  osdmap e1974: 42 osds: 42 up, 42 in
                         flags full
                   pgmap v286626: 1200 pgs, 3 pools, 31096 GB data,
            26259 kobjects
                         94270 GB used, 40874 GB / 131 TB avail
                                1 active+clean+scrubbing+deep
                             1199 active+clean

            I knew it is never really uniform, but the differences of
            the OSDs
            seems very big, one OSD has 96% while another only has 48%
            usage,
            which is about 1,8 TB difference:
            /dev/sdc        3.7T  1.9T  1.8T  51% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdc
            /dev/sdd        3.7T  2.5T  1.2T  68% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdd
            /dev/sde        3.7T  2.3T  1.5T  61% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sde
            /dev/sdf        3.7T  2.7T  975G  74% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdf
            /dev/sdg        3.7T  3.2T  491G  87% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdg
            /dev/sdh        3.7T  2.0T  1.8T  53% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdh
            /dev/sdi        3.7T  2.3T  1.4T  63% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdi
            /dev/sdj        3.7T  3.4T  303G  92% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdj
            /dev/sdk        3.7T  2.8T  915G  76% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdk
            /dev/sdl        3.7T  1.8T  2.0T  48% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdl
            /dev/sdm        3.7T  2.8T  917G  76% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdm
            /dev/sdn        3.7T  3.5T  186G  96% /var/lib/ceph/osd/sdn

            We are running 0.79 (well precisely a patched version of
            it with an
            MDS fix of another thread:-) )
            I remember hearing something about the hashpgpool having
            an effect on
            it, but I read this was already default enabled on the latest
            versions. osd_pool_default_flag_hashpspool has indeed the
            value true,
            but I don't know how to check this for a specific pool.

            Is this behaviour normal? Or what can be wrong?

            Thanks!

            Kind regards,
            Kenneth Waegeman

            _______________________________________________
            ceph-users mailing list
            [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
            http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

            _______________________________________________
            ceph-users mailing list
            [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
            http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




    ----- End message from Tyler Brekke <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> -----

--
    Met vriendelijke groeten,
    Kenneth Waegeman





_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to