On 12/7/19 3:39 PM, Philippe D'Anjou wrote: > @Wido Den Hollander > > First of all the docs say: "In most cases, this distribution is > “perfect,” which an equal number of PGs on each OSD (+/-1 PG, since they > might not divide evenly)." > Either this is just false information or very badly stated.
Might be both. But what are you trying to achieve? PGs will never be equally sized because objects vary in size. The end result, I assume, is that you have equally filled OSDs. > > I increased PGs and see no difference. > > I pointed out MULTIPLE times that Nautilus has major flaws in the data > distribution but nobody seems to listen to me. Not sure how much more > evidence I have to show. > What has changed? Because this can only change if Nautilus had a CRUSH algorithm change which it didn't. Upgrading from Mimic nor Luminous causes a major shift in data. > 0 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 715 GiB 674 GiB 37 GiB 3.9 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.99 0.29 147 up > 1 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 724 GiB 672 GiB 49 GiB 3.8 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.25 0.30 146 up > 2 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 736 GiB 681 GiB 50 GiB 4.4 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.57 0.30 150 up > 3 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 712 GiB 676 GiB 33 GiB 3.5 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.92 0.29 146 up > 4 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 752 GiB 714 GiB 34 GiB 4.6 GiB 2.8 > TiB 21.03 0.31 156 up > 6 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 710 GiB 671 GiB 35 GiB 3.8 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.85 0.29 146 up > 8 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 781 GiB 738 GiB 40 GiB 3.7 GiB 2.7 > TiB 21.85 0.32 156 up > 10 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 728 GiB 682 GiB 42 GiB 4.0 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.35 0.30 146 up > 5 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 664 GiB 628 GiB 32 GiB 4.3 GiB 2.8 > TiB 18.58 0.27 141 up > 7 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 656 GiB 613 GiB 39 GiB 4.0 GiB 2.9 > TiB 18.35 0.27 136 up > 9 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 632 GiB 586 GiB 41 GiB 4.4 GiB 2.9 > TiB 17.67 0.26 131 up > 11 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 725 GiB 701 GiB 22 GiB 2.6 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.28 0.30 138 up > 101 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 755 GiB 713 GiB 38 GiB 3.9 GiB 2.8 > TiB 21.11 0.31 146 up > 103 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 761 GiB 718 GiB 40 GiB 3.6 GiB 2.7 > TiB 21.29 0.31 150 up > 105 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 715 GiB 676 GiB 36 GiB 2.6 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.99 0.29 148 up > 107 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 760 GiB 706 GiB 50 GiB 3.2 GiB 2.8 > TiB 21.24 0.31 147 up > 100 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 724 GiB 674 GiB 47 GiB 2.5 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.25 0.30 144 up > 102 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 669 GiB 654 GiB 12 GiB 2.3 GiB 2.8 > TiB 18.71 0.27 141 up > 104 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 721 GiB 687 GiB 31 GiB 3.0 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.16 0.30 144 up > 106 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 715 GiB 646 GiB 65 GiB 3.8 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.99 0.29 143 up > 108 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 729 GiB 691 GiB 36 GiB 2.6 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.38 0.30 156 up > 109 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 732 GiB 684 GiB 45 GiB 3.0 GiB 2.8 > TiB 20.47 0.30 146 up > 110 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 773 GiB 743 GiB 28 GiB 2.7 GiB 2.7 > TiB 21.63 0.32 154 up > 111 ssd 3.49219 1.00000 3.5 TiB 708 GiB 660 GiB 45 GiB 2.7 GiB 2.8 > TiB 19.78 0.29 146 up > > The % fillrate is no different than before, fluctuates hard. All OSDs are very close to 20%, that's very good. What is the real problem here? Wido _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
