Am 26.02.2018 um 23:48 schrieb Gregory Farnum: > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM Oliver Freyermuth > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Am 26.02.2018 um 23:15 schrieb Gregory Farnum: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:48 AM Oliver Freyermuth > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > The EC pool I am considering is k=4 m=2 with failure > domain host, on 6 hosts. > > > > So necessarily, there is one shard for each host. If > one host goes down for a prolonged time, > > > > there's no "logical" advantage of redistributing things > - since whatever you do, with 5 hosts, all PGs will stay in degraded state > anyways. > > > > > > > > However, I noticed Ceph is remapping all PGs, and > actively moving data. I presume now this is done for two reasons: > > > > - The remapping is needed since the primary OSD might > be the one which went down. But for remapping (I guess) there's no need to > actually move data, > > > > or is there? > > > > - The data movement is done to have the "k" shards > available. > > > > If it's really the case that "all shards are equal", > then data movement should not occur - or is this a bug / bad feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you lose one OSD out of a host, Ceph is going to try and > re-replicate the data onto the other OSDs in that host. Your PG size and the > CRUSH rule instructs it that the PG needs 6 different OSDs, and those OSDs > need to be placed on different hosts. > > > > > > > > You're right that gets very funny if your PG size is equal > to the number of hosts. We generally discourage people from running > configurations like that. > > > > > > Yes. k=4 with m=2 with 6 hosts (i.e. possibility to lose 2 > hosts) would be our starting point - since we may add more hosts later (not > too soon-ish, but it's not excluded more may come in a year or so), > > > and migrating large EC pools to different settings still > seems a bit messy. > > > We can't really afford to reduce available storage > significantly more in the current setup, and would like to have the > possibility to lose one host (for example for an OS upgrade), > > > and then still lose a few disks in case they fail with bad > timing. > > > > > > > > > > > Or if you mean that you are losing a host, and the data is > shuffling around on the remaining hosts...hrm, that'd be weird. (Perhaps a > result of EC pools' "indep" rather than "firstn" crush rules?) > > > > > > They are indep, which I think is the default (no manual > editing done). I thought the main goal of indep was exactly to reduce data > movement. > > > Indeed, it's very funny that data is moved, it certainly does > not help to increase redundancy ;-). > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Can you also share the output of "ceph osd crush dump"? > > > > Attached. > > > > > > Yep, that all looks simple enough. > > > > Do you have any "ceph -s" or other records from when this was > occurring? Is it actually deleting or migrating any of the existing shards, > or is it just that the shards which were previously on the out'ed OSDs are > now getting copied onto the remaining ones? > > > > I think I finally understand what's happening here but would like to be > sure. :) > > -Greg > > > > (In short: certain straws were previously mapping onto osd.[outed], but > now they map onto the remaining OSDs. Because everything's independent, the > actual CRUSH mapping for any shard other than the last is now going to map > onto a remaining OSD, which would displace the shard it already holds. But > the previously-present shard is going to remain "remapped" there because it > can't map successfully. So if you lose osd.5, you'll go from a CRUSH mapping > like [1,3,5,0,2,4] to [1,3,4,0,2,UNMAPPED], but in reality shards 2 and 5 > will both be on OSD 4.) > > Interesting! This would also mean that space usage on the > remaining-active OSDs would increase by 1/6 in our setup, which is > significant. > So that's another good reason to use mon_osd_down_out_subtree_limit=host > or to just set "ceph osd set noout" when actively reinstalling a host. > > I reproduced just now. Here's what I see (ignore the inconsistent PG, > that's unrelated and likely a cause of previous OSD OOM issues): > # ceph -s > cluster: > id: 69b1fbe5-f084-4410-a99a-ab57417e7846 > health: HEALTH_ERR > 41569430/513248666 objects misplaced (8.099%) > 1 scrub errors > Possible data damage: 1 pg inconsistent > Degraded data redundancy: 105575103/513248666 objects > degraded (20.570%), 2176 pgs degraded, 985 pgs undersized > > services: > mon: 3 daemons, quorum mon003,mon001,mon002 > mgr: mon002(active), standbys: mon001, mon003 > mds: cephfs_baf-1/1/1 up {0=mon002=up:active}, 1 up:standby-replay, > 1 up:standby > osd: 196 osds: 164 up, 164 in; 1166 remapped pgs > > data: > pools: 2 pools, 2176 pgs > objects: 89370k objects, 4488 GB > usage: 29546 GB used, 555 TB / 584 TB avail > pgs: 105575103/513248666 objects degraded (20.570%) > 41569430/513248666 objects misplaced (8.099%) > 1166 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling > 1009 active+undersized+degraded > 1 active+undersized+degraded+inconsistent > > io: > client: 6784 kB/s rd, 6820 kB/s wr, 804 op/s rd, 1174 op/s wr > recovery: 79333 kB/s, 27 keys/s, 1080 objects/s > > In ceph health detail, I see: > pg 2.7cd is active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, acting > [91,63,33,163,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,103] > pg 2.7ce is stuck undersized for 114.063431, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [31,121,157,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,61,87] > pg 2.7cf is stuck undersized for 110.842287, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [163,36,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,21,124,69] > pg 2.7d0 is stuck undersized for 118.876276, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [140,91,66,22,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,112] > pg 2.7d1 is stuck undersized for 388.377010, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [62,110,2147483647 > <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,31,141,81] > pg 2.7d2 is stuck undersized for 111.265718, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [54,125,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,157,88,21] > pg 2.7d3 is stuck undersized for 105.885607, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [20,117,96,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,144,54] > pg 2.7d4 is stuck undersized for 112.693680, current state > active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, last acting > [105,145,71,60,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,13] > pg 2.7d5 is stuck undersized for 388.337919, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [142,90,19,60,2147483647,127] > [...] > While I saw, when the host's OSDs were only down, but still in: > pg 2.7cd is active+undersized+degraded, acting > [91,63,33,163,2147483647 <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,103] > pg 2.7ce is stuck undersized for 145.507311, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [31,121,157,2147483647 > <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,61,87] > pg 2.7cf is stuck undersized for 143.293067, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [163,36,2147483647 > <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,21,124,69] > pg 2.7d0 is stuck undersized for 145.461503, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [140,91,66,22,2147483647,112] > pg 2.7d1 is stuck undersized for 145.496089, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [62,110,2147483647 > <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,31,141,81] > pg 2.7d2 is stuck undersized for 145.513296, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [54,125,2147483647 > <tel:(214)%20748-3647>,157,88,21] > pg 2.7d3 is stuck undersized for 145.503361, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [20,117,96,2147483647,144,54] > pg 2.7d4 is stuck undersized for 145.484259, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [105,145,71,60,2147483647,13] > pg 2.7d5 is stuck undersized for 145.456998, current state > active+undersized+degraded, last acting [142,90,19,60,2147483647,127] > > Does this match expectations? > > > Can you get the output of eg "ceph pg 2.7cd query"? Want to make sure the > backfilling versus acting sets and things are correct.
(resent with attachments compressed to make listserver happy)
You'll find attached:
query_allwell) Output of "ceph pg 2.7cd query" when all OSDs are up and
everything is healthy.
query_one_host_out) Output of "ceph pg 2.7cd query" when OSDs 164-195 (one
host) are down and out.
Cheers,
Oliver
query_one_host_out.gz
Description: application/gzip
query_allwell.gz
Description: application/gzip
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
