After apt-get update and upgrade i stil see 0.87 release .. any hint ? /Zee
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Florent MONTHEL <fmont...@flox-arts.net> wrote: > Hi Sage > > To be sure to have the good understanding : if I reached the max number of > PG per OSD with for example 4 pools, and I have to create 2 new pools > without adding OSD, I need to migrate old pools to less PGs pool, right ? > Thanks > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 23 déc. 2014, at 15:39, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Ren? Gallati wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> so I upgraded my cluster from 89 to 90 and now I get: > >> > >> ~# ceph health > >> HEALTH_WARN too many PGs per OSD (864 > max 300) > >> > >> That is a new one. I had too few but never too many. Is this a problem > that > >> needs attention, or ignorable? Or is there even a command now to shrink > PGs? > > > > It's a new warning. > > > > You can't reduce the PG count without creating new (smaller) pools > > and migrating data. You can ignore the message, though, and make it go > > away by adjusting the 'mon pg warn max per osd' (defaults to 300). > Having > > too many PGs increases the memory utilization and can slow things down > > when adapting to a failure, but certainly isn't fatal. > > > >> The message did not appear before, I currently have 32 OSDs over 8 > hosts and 9 > >> pools, each with 1024 PG as was the recommended number according to the > OSD * > >> 100 / replica formula, then round to next power of 2. The cluster has > been > >> increased by 4 OSDs, 8th host only days before. That is to say, it was > at 28 > >> OSD / 7 hosts / 9 pools but after extending it with another host, ceph > 89 did > >> not complain. > >> > >> Using the formula again I'd actually need to go to 2048PGs in pools but > ceph > >> is telling me to reduce the PG count now? > > > > The guidance in the docs is (was?) a bit confusing. You need to take the > > *total* number of PGs and see how many of those per OSD there are, > > not create as many equally-sized pools as you want. There have been > > several attempts to clarify the language to avoid this misunderstanding > > (you're definitely not the first). If it's still unclear, suggestions > > welcome! > > > > sage > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- Regards Zeeshan Ali Shah System Administrator - PDC HPC PhD researcher (IT security) Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan +46 8 790 9115 http://www.pdc.kth.se/members/zashah
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
