Thank you very much Paul. Kevin
Am Do., 20. Sep. 2018 um 15:19 Uhr schrieb Paul Emmerich < [email protected]>: > Hi, > > device classes are internally represented as completely independent > trees/roots; showing them in one tree is just syntactic sugar. > > For example, if you have a hierarchy like root --> host1, host2, host3 > --> nvme/ssd/sata OSDs, then you'll actually have 3 trees: > > root~ssd -> host1~ssd, host2~ssd ... > root~sata -> host~sata, ... > > > Paul > > 2018-09-20 14:54 GMT+02:00 Kevin Olbrich <[email protected]>: > > Hi! > > > > Currently I have a cluster with four hosts and 4x HDDs + 4 SSDs per host. > > I also have replication rules to distinguish between HDD and SSD (and > > failure-domain set to rack) which are mapped to pools. > > > > What happens if I add a heterogeneous host with 1x SSD and 1x NVMe (where > > NVMe will be a new device-class based rule)? > > > > Will the crush weight be calculated from the OSDs up to the > failure-domain > > based on the crush rule? > > The only crush-weights I know and see are those shown by "ceph osd tree". > > > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > > -- > Paul Emmerich > > Looking for help with your Ceph cluster? Contact us at https://croit.io > > croit GmbH > Freseniusstr. 31h > 81247 München > www.croit.io > Tel: +49 89 1896585 90 >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
