OIC, thanks for providing the tree output. From what you wrote originally it seemed plausible that you were mixing up the columns, which is not an uncommon thing to do.
If all of your OSD’s are the same size, and have a CRUSH weight of 1.0000, then you have just the usual OSD fullness distribution problem. If you have other OSD’s in the cluster that are the same size as these but have different CRUSH weights, then you do have a problem. Is that the case? Feel free to privately email me your entire ceph osd tree output if you like, to avoid spamming the list. — aad > Hi Anthony, > > When the OSDs were added it appears they were added with a crush weight of 1 > so I believe we need to change the weighting as we are getting a lot of very > full OSDs. > > -21 20.00000 host somehost > 216 1.00000 osd.216 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 217 1.00000 osd.217 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 218 1.00000 osd.218 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 219 1.00000 osd.219 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 220 1.00000 osd.220 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 221 1.00000 osd.221 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 222 1.00000 osd.222 up 1.00000 1.00000 > 223 1.00000 osd.223 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony D'Atri <a...@dreamsnake.net> > Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 1:10 PM > To: ceph-users <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > Cc: Cave Mike <mc...@uvic.ca> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re-weight Entire Cluster? > > > >> It appears the current best practice is to weight each OSD according to it?s >> size (3.64 for 4TB drive, 7.45 for 8TB drive, etc). > > OSD’s are created with those sorts of CRUSH weights by default, yes. Which > is convenient, but it’s import to know that those weights are arbitrary, and > what really matters is how the weights of each OSD / host / rack compares to > its siblings. They are relative weights, not absolute capacities. > >> As it turns out, it was not configured this way at all; all of the OSDs are >> weighted at 1. > > Are you perhaps confusing CRUSH weights with override weights? In the below > example each OSD has a CRUSH weight of 3.48169, but the override reweight is > 1.000. The override ranges from 0 to 1. It is admittedly confusing to have > two different things called weight. Ceph’s reweight-by-utilization eg. acts > by adjusting the override reweight and not touching the CRUSH weights. > > ID WEIGHT TYPE NAME UP/DOWN REWEIGHT > PRIMARY-AFFINITY > -44 83.56055 host somehostname > 936 3.48169 osd.936 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > 937 3.48169 osd.937 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > 938 3.48169 osd.938 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > 939 3.48169 osd.939 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > 940 3.48169 osd.940 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > 941 3.48169 osd.941 up 1.00000 > 1.00000 > > If you see something similar, from “ceph osd tree”, then chances are that > there’s no point in changing anything since with CRUSH weights, all that > matters is how they compare across OSD’s/racks/hosts/etc.. So you could > double all of them just for grins, and nothing in how the cluster operates > would change. > > — Anthony > > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
