Am 20.09.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Christian Balzer:
> This and the non-permanence of reweight is why I use CRUSH reweight (a
> more distinct naming would be VERY helpful, too) and do it manually, which
> tends to beat all the automated approaches so far.
so you do it really by hand and use ceph osd crush set weight?
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:49:50 +0200 Dan van der Ster wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>> What's the current reweight value for osd.110? It cannot be increased above
>> Cheers, Dan
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
>> <s.pri...@profihost.ag> wrote:
>>> while using ceph hammer i saw in the doc of ceph reweight-by-utilization
>>> that there is a --no-increasing flag. I do not use it but never saw an
>>> increased weight value even some of my osds are really empty.
>>> 821G 549G 273G 67% /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-110
>>> 821G 767G 54G 94% /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-13
>>> I would expect that ceph reweight-by-utilization increases osd.110
>>> weight value but instead it still lowers other osds.
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users mailing list