I was able to obtain another NVMe to get the HDDs in node1004 into the
cluster.
The number of disks (all 1TB) is now balanced between racks, still some
inactive PGs:
data:
pools: 2 pools, 1536 pgs
objects: 639k objects, 2554 GB
usage: 5167 GB used, 14133 GB / 19300 GB avail
pgs: 1.562% pgs not active
1183/1309952 objects degraded (0.090%)
199660/1309952 objects misplaced (15.242%)
1072 active+clean
405 active+remapped+backfill_wait
35 active+remapped+backfilling
21 activating+remapped
3 activating+undersized+degraded+remapped
ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF
-1 18.85289 root default
-16 18.85289 datacenter dc01
-19 18.85289 pod dc01-agg01
-10 8.98700 rack dc01-rack02
-4 4.03899 host node1001
0 hdd 0.90999 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000
1 hdd 0.90999 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000
5 hdd 0.90999 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000
2 ssd 0.43700 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000
3 ssd 0.43700 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000
4 ssd 0.43700 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000
-7 4.94899 host node1002
9 hdd 0.90999 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000
10 hdd 0.90999 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000
11 hdd 0.90999 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000
12 hdd 0.90999 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000
6 ssd 0.43700 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000
7 ssd 0.43700 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000
8 ssd 0.43700 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000
-11 9.86589 rack dc01-rack03
-22 5.38794 host node1003
17 hdd 0.90999 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000
18 hdd 0.90999 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000
24 hdd 0.90999 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000
26 hdd 0.90999 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000
13 ssd 0.43700 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000
14 ssd 0.43700 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000
15 ssd 0.43700 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000
16 ssd 0.43700 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000
-25 4.47795 host node1004
23 hdd 0.90999 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000
25 hdd 0.90999 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000
27 hdd 0.90999 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000
19 ssd 0.43700 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000
20 ssd 0.43700 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000
21 ssd 0.43700 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000
22 ssd 0.43700 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000
Pools are size 2, min_size 1 during setup.
The count of PGs in activate state are related to the weight of OSDs but
why are they failing to proceed to active+clean or active+remapped?
Kind regards,
Kevin
2018-05-17 14:05 GMT+02:00 Kevin Olbrich <k...@sv01.de>:
> Ok, I just waited some time but I still got some "activating" issues:
>
> data:
> pools: 2 pools, 1536 pgs
> objects: 639k objects, 2554 GB
> usage: 5194 GB used, 11312 GB / 16506 GB avail
> pgs: 7.943% pgs not active
> 5567/1309948 objects degraded (0.425%)
> 195386/1309948 objects misplaced (14.916%)
> 1147 active+clean
> 235 active+remapped+backfill_wait
> * 107 activating+remapped*
> 32 active+remapped+backfilling
> * 15 activating+undersized+degraded+remapped*
>
> I set these settings during runtime:
> ceph tell 'osd.*' injectargs '--osd-max-backfills 16'
> ceph tell 'osd.*' injectargs '--osd-recovery-max-active 4'
> ceph tell 'mon.*' injectargs '--mon_max_pg_per_osd 800'
> ceph tell 'osd.*' injectargs '--osd_max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio 32'
>
> Sure, mon_max_pg_per_osd is oversized but this is just temporary.
> Calculated PGs per OSD is 200.
>
> I searched the net and the bugtracker but most posts suggest
> osd_max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio = 32 to fix this issue but this time, I got
> more stuck PGs.
>
> Any more hints?
>
> Kind regards.
> Kevin
>
> 2018-05-17 13:37 GMT+02:00 Kevin Olbrich <k...@sv01.de>:
>
>> PS: Cluster currently is size 2, I used PGCalc on Ceph website which, by
>> default, will place 200 PGs on each OSD.
>> I read about the protection in the docs and later noticed that I better
>> had only placed 100 PGs.
>>
>>
>> 2018-05-17 13:35 GMT+02:00 Kevin Olbrich <k...@sv01.de>:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Thanks for your quick reply.
>>> Before I read your mail, i applied the following conf to my OSDs:
>>> ceph tell 'osd.*' injectargs '--osd_max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio 32'
>>>
>>> Status is now:
>>> data:
>>> pools: 2 pools, 1536 pgs
>>> objects: 639k objects, 2554 GB
>>> usage: 5211 GB used, 11295 GB / 16506 GB avail
>>> pgs: 7.943% pgs not active
>>> 5567/1309948 objects degraded (0.425%)
>>> 252327/1309948 objects misplaced (19.262%)
>>> 1030 active+clean
>>> 351 active+remapped+backfill_wait
>>> 107 activating+remapped
>>> 33 active+remapped+backfilling
>>> 15 activating+undersized+degraded+remapped
>>>
>>> A little bit better but still some non-active PGs.
>>> I will investigate your other hints!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> 2018-05-17 13:30 GMT+02:00 Burkhard Linke <Burkhard.Linke@computational.
>>> bio.uni-giessen.de>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/17/2018 01:09 PM, Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I added some new OSDs (nearly doubled) to my luminous cluster.
>>>>> I then changed pg(p)_num from 256 to 1024 for that pool because it was
>>>>> complaining about to few PGs. (I noticed that should better have been
>>>>> small
>>>>> changes).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the current status:
>>>>>
>>>>> health: HEALTH_ERR
>>>>> 336568/1307562 objects misplaced (25.740%)
>>>>> Reduced data availability: 128 pgs inactive, 3 pgs
>>>>> peering, 1
>>>>> pg stale
>>>>> Degraded data redundancy: 6985/1307562 objects degraded
>>>>> (0.534%), 19 pgs degraded, 19 pgs undersized
>>>>> 107 slow requests are blocked > 32 sec
>>>>> 218 stuck requests are blocked > 4096 sec
>>>>>
>>>>> data:
>>>>> pools: 2 pools, 1536 pgs
>>>>> objects: 638k objects, 2549 GB
>>>>> usage: 5210 GB used, 11295 GB / 16506 GB avail
>>>>> pgs: 0.195% pgs unknown
>>>>> 8.138% pgs not active
>>>>> 6985/1307562 objects degraded (0.534%)
>>>>> 336568/1307562 objects misplaced (25.740%)
>>>>> 855 active+clean
>>>>> 517 active+remapped+backfill_wait
>>>>> 107 activating+remapped
>>>>> 31 active+remapped+backfilling
>>>>> 15 activating+undersized+degraded+remapped
>>>>> 4 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
>>>>> 3 unknown
>>>>> 3 peering
>>>>> 1 stale+active+clean
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to resolve the unknown/peering/activating pgs first. You have
>>>> 1536 PGs, assuming replication size 3 this make 4608 PG copies. Given 25
>>>> OSDs and the heterogenous host sizes, I assume that some OSDs hold more
>>>> than 200 PGs. There's a threshold for the number of PGs; reaching this
>>>> threshold keeps the OSDs from accepting new PGs.
>>>>
>>>> Try to increase the threshold (mon_max_pg_per_osd /
>>>> max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio / osd_max_pg_per_osd_hard_ratio, not sure about
>>>> the exact one, consult the documentation) to allow more PGs on the OSDs. If
>>>> this is the cause of the problem, the peering and activating states should
>>>> be resolved within a short time.
>>>>
>>>> You can also check the number of PGs per OSD with 'ceph osd df'; the
>>>> last column is the current number of PGs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OSD tree:
>>>>>
>>>>> ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT
>>>>> PRI-AFF
>>>>> -1 16.12177 root default
>>>>> -16 16.12177 datacenter dc01
>>>>> -19 16.12177 pod dc01-agg01
>>>>> -10 8.98700 rack dc01-rack02
>>>>> -4 4.03899 host node1001
>>>>> 0 hdd 0.90999 osd.0 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 1 hdd 0.90999 osd.1 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 5 hdd 0.90999 osd.5 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 2 ssd 0.43700 osd.2 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 3 ssd 0.43700 osd.3 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 4 ssd 0.43700 osd.4 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> -7 4.94899 host node1002
>>>>> 9 hdd 0.90999 osd.9 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 10 hdd 0.90999 osd.10 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 11 hdd 0.90999 osd.11 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 12 hdd 0.90999 osd.12 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 6 ssd 0.43700 osd.6 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 7 ssd 0.43700 osd.7 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 8 ssd 0.43700 osd.8 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> -11 7.13477 rack dc01-rack03
>>>>> -22 5.38678 host node1003
>>>>> 17 hdd 0.90970 osd.17 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 18 hdd 0.90970 osd.18 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 24 hdd 0.90970 osd.24 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 26 hdd 0.90970 osd.26 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 13 ssd 0.43700 osd.13 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 14 ssd 0.43700 osd.14 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 15 ssd 0.43700 osd.15 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 16 ssd 0.43700 osd.16 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> -25 1.74799 host node1004
>>>>> 19 ssd 0.43700 osd.19 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 20 ssd 0.43700 osd.20 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 21 ssd 0.43700 osd.21 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>> 22 ssd 0.43700 osd.22 up 1.00000
>>>>> 1.00000
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Crush rule is set to chooseleaf rack and (temporary!) to size 2.
>>>>> Why are PGs stuck in peering and activating?
>>>>> "ceph df" shows that only 1,5TB are used on the pool, residing on the
>>>>> hdd's
>>>>> - which would perfectly fit the crush rule....(?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Size 2 within the crush rule or size 2 for the two pools?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Burkhard
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
