Curiously, it has been quite a while, but there is still no object in the underlying data pool: # rados -p cephfs_data ls
Any advice? On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, David Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Notice in the URL for the documentation the use of "luminous". When you > looked a few weeks ago, you might have been looking at the documentation > for a different version of Ceph. You can change that to jewel, hammer, > kraken, master, etc depending on which version of Ceph you are running or > reading about. Google gets confused and will pull up random versions of > the ceph documentation for a page. It's on us to make sure that the url is > pointing to the version of Ceph that we are using. > > While it's sitting there in the flush command, can you see if there are > any objects in the underlying data pool? Hopefully the count will be > growing. > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM Shawfeng Dong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Christian, >> >> I set those via CLI: >> # ceph osd pool set cephfs_cache target_max_bytes 1099511627776 >> # ceph osd pool set cephfs_cache target_max_objects 1000000 >> >> but manual flushing doesn't appear to work: >> # rados -p cephfs_cache cache-flush-evict-all >> 1000000046a.00000ca6 >> >> it just gets stuck there for a long time. >> >> Any suggestion? Do I need to restart the daemons or reboot the nodes? >> >> Thanks, >> Shaw >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Christian Balzer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:14:40 -0700 Shawfeng Dong wrote: >>> >>> > I found the command: rados -p cephfs_cache cache-flush-evict-all >>> > >>> That's not what you want/need. >>> Though it will fix your current "full" issue. >>> >>> > The documentation ( >>> > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/luminous/rados/operations/cache-tiering/) >>> has >>> > been improved a lot since I last checked it a few weeks ago! >>> > >>> The need to set max_bytes and max_objects has been documented for ages >>> (since Hammer). >>> >>> more below... >>> >>> > -Shaw >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Shawfeng Dong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Thanks, Luis. >>> > > >>> > > I've just set max_bytes and max_objects: >>> How? >>> Editing the conf file won't help until a restart. >>> >>> > > target_max_objects: 1000000 (1M) >>> > > target_max_bytes: 1099511627776 (1TB) >>> > >>> I'd lower that or the cache_target_full_ratio by another 10%. >>> >>> Christian >>> > > >>> > > but nothing appears to be happening. Is there a way to force >>> flushing? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Shaw >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Luis Periquito <[email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Not looking at anything else, you didn't set the max_bytes or >>> > >> max_objects for it to start flushing... >>> > >> >>> > >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Shawfeng Dong <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> > Dear all, >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Thanks a lot for the very insightful comments/suggestions! >>> > >> > >>> > >> > There are 3 OSD servers in our pilot Ceph cluster, each with 2x >>> 1TB SSDs >>> > >> > (boot disks), 12x 8TB SATA HDDs and 2x 1.2TB NVMe SSDs. We use the >>> > >> bluestore >>> > >> > backend, with the first NVMe as the WAL and DB devices for OSDs >>> on the >>> > >> HDDs. >>> > >> > And we try to create a cache tier out of the second NVMes. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Here are the outputs of the commands suggested by David: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 1) # ceph df >>> > >> > GLOBAL: >>> > >> > SIZE AVAIL RAW USED %RAW USED >>> > >> > 265T 262T 2847G 1.05 >>> > >> > POOLS: >>> > >> > NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL >>> > >> OBJECTS >>> > >> > cephfs_data 1 0 0 248T >>> > >> 0 >>> > >> > cephfs_metadata 2 8515k 0 248T >>> > >> 24 >>> > >> > cephfs_cache 3 1381G 100.00 0 >>> > >> 355385 >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 2) # ceph osd df >>> > >> > 0 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 174 >>> > >> > 1 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 169 >>> > >> > 2 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>> > >> > 3 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 159 >>> > >> > 4 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>> > >> > 5 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 162 >>> > >> > 6 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 149 >>> > >> > 7 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 179 >>> > >> > 8 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 163 >>> > >> > 9 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 194 >>> > >> > 10 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 185 >>> > >> > 11 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 168 >>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 855G 262G 76.53 73.01 79 >>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 180 >>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 168 >>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 178 >>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 170 >>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 149 >>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 203 >>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 158 >>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 154 >>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 160 >>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 167 >>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 188 >>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 1061G 57214M 95.00 90.63 98 >>> > >> > 24 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 187 >>> > >> > 25 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 200 >>> > >> > 26 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 147 >>> > >> > 27 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 171 >>> > >> > 28 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 162 >>> > >> > 29 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 152 >>> > >> > 30 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 174 >>> > >> > 31 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 176 >>> > >> > 32 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 182 >>> > >> > 33 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 155 >>> > >> > 34 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 166 >>> > >> > 35 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 176 >>> > >> > 38 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 857G 260G 76.71 73.18 79 >>> > >> > TOTAL 265T 2847G 262T 1.05 >>> > >> > MIN/MAX VAR: 0.03/90.63 STDDEV: 22.81 >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 3) # ceph osd tree >>> > >> > -1 265.29291 root default >>> > >> > -3 88.43097 host pulpo-osd01 >>> > >> > 0 hdd 7.27829 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 1 hdd 7.27829 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 2 hdd 7.27829 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 3 hdd 7.27829 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 4 hdd 7.27829 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 5 hdd 7.27829 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 6 hdd 7.27829 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 7 hdd 7.27829 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 8 hdd 7.27829 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 9 hdd 7.27829 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 10 hdd 7.27829 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 11 hdd 7.27829 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 osd.36 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > -5 88.43097 host pulpo-osd02 >>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 osd.37 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 osd.36 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > -5 88.43097 host pulpo-osd02 >>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 osd.37 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > -7 88.43097 host pulpo-osd03 >>> > >> > 24 hdd 7.27829 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 25 hdd 7.27829 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 26 hdd 7.27829 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 27 hdd 7.27829 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 28 hdd 7.27829 osd.28 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 29 hdd 7.27829 osd.29 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 30 hdd 7.27829 osd.30 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 31 hdd 7.27829 osd.31 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 32 hdd 7.27829 osd.32 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 33 hdd 7.27829 osd.33 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 34 hdd 7.27829 osd.34 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 35 hdd 7.27829 osd.35 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > 38 nvme 1.09149 osd.38 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 4) # ceph osd pool get cephfs_cache all >>> > >> > min_size: 2 >>> > >> > crash_replay_interval: 0 >>> > >> > pg_num: 128 >>> > >> > pgp_num: 128 >>> > >> > crush_rule: pulpo_nvme >>> > >> > hashpspool: true >>> > >> > nodelete: false >>> > >> > nopgchange: false >>> > >> > nosizechange: false >>> > >> > write_fadvise_dontneed: false >>> > >> > noscrub: false >>> > >> > nodeep-scrub: false >>> > >> > hit_set_type: bloom >>> > >> > hit_set_period: 14400 >>> > >> > hit_set_count: 12 >>> > >> > hit_set_fpp: 0.05 >>> > >> > use_gmt_hitset: 1 >>> > >> > auid: 0 >>> > >> > target_max_objects: 0 >>> > >> > target_max_bytes: 0 >>> > >> > cache_target_dirty_ratio: 0.4 >>> > >> > cache_target_dirty_high_ratio: 0.6 >>> > >> > cache_target_full_ratio: 0.8 >>> > >> > cache_min_flush_age: 0 >>> > >> > cache_min_evict_age: 0 >>> > >> > min_read_recency_for_promote: 0 >>> > >> > min_write_recency_for_promote: 0 >>> > >> > fast_read: 0 >>> > >> > hit_set_grade_decay_rate: 0 >>> > >> > crash_replay_interval: 0 >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Do you see anything wrong? We had written some small files to the >>> CephFS >>> > >> > before we tried to write the big 1TB file. What is puzzling to me >>> is >>> > >> that no >>> > >> > data has been written back to the data pool. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Best, >>> > >> > Shaw >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:46 AM, David Turner < >>> [email protected]> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 1:05 AM Christian Balzer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> Hello, >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 03:30:41 +0000 David Turner wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> > You're missing most all of the important bits. What the osds >>> in your >>> > >> >>> > cluster look like, your tree, and your cache pool settings. >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > ceph df >>> > >> >>> > ceph osd df >>> > >> >>> > ceph osd tree >>> > >> >>> > ceph osd pool get cephfs_cache all >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> Especially the last one. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> My money is on not having set target_max_objects and >>> target_max_bytes >>> > >> to >>> > >> >>> sensible values along with the ratios. >>> > >> >>> In short, not having read the (albeit spotty) documentation. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> > You have your writeback cache on 3 nvme drives. It looks like >>> you >>> > >> have >>> > >> >>> > 1.6TB available between them for the cache. I don't know the >>> > >> behavior >>> > >> >>> > of a >>> > >> >>> > writeback cache tier on cephfs for large files, but I would >>> guess >>> > >> that >>> > >> >>> > it >>> > >> >>> > can only hold full files and not flush partial files. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> I VERY much doubt that, if so it would be a massive flaw. >>> > >> >>> One assumes that cache operations work on the RADOS object >>> level, no >>> > >> >>> matter what. >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> I hope that it is on the rados level, but not a single object >>> had been >>> > >> >> flushed to the backing pool. So I hazarded a guess. Seeing his >>> > >> settings will >>> > >> >> shed more light. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> > That would mean your >>> > >> >>> > cache needs to have enough space for any file being written >>> to the >>> > >> >>> > cluster. >>> > >> >>> > In this case a 1.3TB file with 3x replication would require >>> 3.9TB >>> > >> (more >>> > >> >>> > than double what you have available) of available space in >>> your >>> > >> >>> > writeback >>> > >> >>> > cache. >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > There are very few use cases that benefit from a cache tier. >>> The >>> > >> docs >>> > >> >>> > for >>> > >> >>> > Luminous warn as much. >>> > >> >>> You keep repeating that like a broken record. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> And while certainly not false I for one wouldn't be able to use >>> > >> (justify >>> > >> >>> using) Ceph w/o cache tiers in our main use case. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> In this case I assume they were following and old cheat sheet >>> or such, >>> > >> >>> suggesting the previously required cache tier with EC pools. >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/luminous/rados/operations/ >>> cache-tiering/ >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> I know I keep repeating it, especially recently as there have >>> been a >>> > >> lot >>> > >> >> of people asking about it. The Luminous docs added a large >>> section >>> > >> about how >>> > >> >> it is probably not what you want. Like me, it is not saying that >>> there >>> > >> are >>> > >> >> no use cases for it. There was no information provided about the >>> use >>> > >> case >>> > >> >> and I made some suggestions/guesses. I'm also guessing that they >>> are >>> > >> >> following a guide where a writeback cache was necessary for >>> CephFS to >>> > >> use EC >>> > >> >> prior to Luminous. I also usually add that people should test it >>> out >>> > >> and >>> > >> >> find what works best for them. I will always defer to your >>> practical >>> > >> use of >>> > >> >> cache tiers as well, especially when using rbds. >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> I manage a cluster that I intend to continue running a writeback >>> cache >>> > >> in >>> > >> >> front of CephFS on the same drives as the EC pool. The use case >>> > >> receives a >>> > >> >> good enough benefit from the cache tier that it isn't even >>> required to >>> > >> use >>> > >> >> flash media to see it. It is used for video editing and the >>> files are >>> > >> >> usually modified and read within the first 24 hours and then >>> left in >>> > >> cold >>> > >> >> storage until deleted. I have the cache timed to keep everything >>> in it >>> > >> for >>> > >> >> 24 hours and then evict it by using a minimum time to flush and >>> evict >>> > >> at 24 >>> > >> >> hours and a target max bytes of 0. All files are in there for >>> that >>> > >> time and >>> > >> >> then it never has to decide what to keep as it doesn't keep >>> anything >>> > >> longer >>> > >> >> than that. Luckily read performance from cold storage is not a >>> > >> requirement >>> > >> >> of this cluster as any read operation has to first read it from >>> EC >>> > >> storage, >>> > >> >> write it to replica storage, and then read it from replica >>> storage... >>> > >> Yuck. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> Christian >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >What is your goal by implementing this cache? If the >>> > >> >>> > answer is to utilize extra space on the nvmes, then just >>> remove it >>> > >> and >>> > >> >>> > say >>> > >> >>> > thank you. The better use of nvmes in that case are as a part >>> of the >>> > >> >>> > bluestore stack and give your osds larger DB partitions. >>> Keeping >>> > >> your >>> > >> >>> > metadata pool on nvmes is still a good idea. >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 7:45 PM Shawfeng Dong <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > > Dear all, >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > We just set up a Ceph cluster, running the latest stable >>> release >>> > >> Ceph >>> > >> >>> > > v12.2.0 (Luminous): >>> > >> >>> > > # ceph --version >>> > >> >>> > > ceph version 12.2.0 (32ce2a3ae5239ee33d6150705cdb24 >>> d43bab910c) >>> > >> >>> > > luminous >>> > >> >>> > > (rc) >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > The goal is to serve Ceph filesystem, for which we created 3 >>> > >> pools: >>> > >> >>> > > # ceph osd lspools >>> > >> >>> > > 1 cephfs_data,2 cephfs_metadata,3 cephfs_cache, >>> > >> >>> > > where >>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_data is the data pool (36 OSDs on HDDs), which is >>> > >> >>> > > erased-coded; >>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_metadata is the metadata pool >>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_cache is the cache tier (3 OSDs on NVMes) for >>> > >> cephfs_data. >>> > >> >>> > > The >>> > >> >>> > > cache-mode is writeback. >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > Everything had worked fine, until today when we tried to >>> copy a >>> > >> 1.3TB >>> > >> >>> > > file >>> > >> >>> > > to the CephFS. We got the "No space left on device" error! >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > 'ceph -s' says some OSDs are full: >>> > >> >>> > > # ceph -s >>> > >> >>> > > cluster: >>> > >> >>> > > id: e18516bf-39cb-4670-9f13-88ccb7d19769 >>> > >> >>> > > health: HEALTH_ERR >>> > >> >>> > > full flag(s) set >>> > >> >>> > > 1 full osd(s) >>> > >> >>> > > 1 pools have many more objects per pg than >>> average >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > services: >>> > >> >>> > > mon: 3 daemons, quorum pulpo-admin,pulpo-mon01,pulpo- >>> mds01 >>> > >> >>> > > mgr: pulpo-mds01(active), standbys: pulpo-admin, >>> pulpo-mon01 >>> > >> >>> > > mds: pulpos-1/1/1 up {0=pulpo-mds01=up:active} >>> > >> >>> > > osd: 39 osds: 39 up, 39 in >>> > >> >>> > > flags full >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > data: >>> > >> >>> > > pools: 3 pools, 2176 pgs >>> > >> >>> > > objects: 347k objects, 1381 GB >>> > >> >>> > > usage: 2847 GB used, 262 TB / 265 TB avail >>> > >> >>> > > pgs: 2176 active+clean >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > io: >>> > >> >>> > > client: 19301 kB/s rd, 2935 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > And indeed the cache pool is full: >>> > >> >>> > > # rados df >>> > >> >>> > > POOL_NAME USED OBJECTS CLONES COPIES >>> MISSING_ON_PRIMARY >>> > >> >>> > > UNFOUND >>> > >> >>> > > DEGRADED RD_OPS RD >>> > >> >>> > > WR_OPS WR >>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_cache 1381G 355385 0 710770 >>> 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 10004954 15 >>> > >> >>> > > 22G 1398063 1611G >>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_data 0 0 0 0 >>> 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 0 0 >>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_metadata 8515k 24 0 72 >>> 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>> > >> >>> > > 0 3 3 >>> > >> >>> > > 072 3953 10541k >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > total_objects 355409 >>> > >> >>> > > total_used 2847G >>> > >> >>> > > total_avail 262T >>> > >> >>> > > total_space 265T >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > However, the data pool is completely empty! So it seems >>> that data >>> > >> has >>> > >> >>> > > only >>> > >> >>> > > been written to the cache pool, but not written back to the >>> data >>> > >> >>> > > pool. >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > I am really at a loss whether this is due to a setup error >>> on my >>> > >> >>> > > part, or >>> > >> >>> > > a Luminous bug. Could anyone shed some light on this? >>> Please let >>> > >> me >>> > >> >>> > > know if >>> > >> >>> > > you need any further info. >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > > Best, >>> > >> >>> > > Shaw >>> > >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > >> >>> > > ceph-users mailing list >>> > >> >>> > > [email protected] >>> > >> >>> > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> -- >>> > >> >>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>> > >> >>> [email protected] Rakuten Communications >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> >>> 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 >>> > >> >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > _______________________________________________ >>> > >> > ceph-users mailing list >>> > >> > [email protected] >>> > >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>> [email protected] Rakuten Communications >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
