Thanks John, I removed these pools on Friday and as you suspected there was no impact.
Regards, Rich On 8 January 2018 at 23:15, John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Richard Bade <hitr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> I've got a couple of pools that I don't believe are being used but >> have a reasonably large number of pg's (approx 50% of our total pg's). >> I'd like to delete them but as they were pre-existing when I inherited >> the cluster, I wanted to make sure they aren't needed for anything >> first. >> Here's the details: >> POOLS: >> NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL OBJECTS >> data 0 0 0 88037G 0 >> metadata 1 0 0 88037G 0 >> >> We don't run cephfs and I believe these are meant for that, but may >> have been created by default when the cluster was set up (back on >> dumpling or bobtail I think). >> As far as I can tell there is no data in them. Do they need to exist >> for some ceph function? >> The pool names worry me a little, as they sound important. > > The data and metadata pools were indeed created by default in older > versions of Ceph, for use by CephFS. Since you're not using CephFS, > and nobody is using the pools for anything else either (they're > empty), you can go ahead and delete them. > >> >> They have 3136 pg's each so I'd like to be rid of those so I can >> increase the number of pg's in my actual data pools without getting >> over the 300 pg's per osd. >> Here's the osd dump: >> pool 0 'data' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >> rjenkins pg_num 3136 pgp_num 3136 last_change 1 crash_replay_interval >> 45 min_read_recency_for_promote 1 min_write_recency_for_promote 1 >> stripe_width 0 >> pool 1 'metadata' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 1 >> object_hash rjenkins pg_num 3136 pgp_num 3136 last_change 1 >> min_read_recency_for_promote 1 min_write_recency_for_promote 1 >> stripe_width 0 >> >> Also, what performance impact am I likely to see when ceph removes the >> empty pg's considering it's approx 50% of my total pg's on my 180 >> osd's. > > Given that they're empty, I'd expect little if any noticeable impact. > > John > >> >> Thanks, >> Rich >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
