Re: [ceph-users] Does crushtool --test --simulate do what cluster should do?
I'm not sure why crushtool --test --simulate doesn't match what the cluster actually does, but the cluster seems to be executing the rules even though crushtool doesn't. Just kind of stinks that you have to test the rules on actual data. Should I create a ticket for this? On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Robert LeBlanc rob...@leblancnet.us wrote: I'm trying to create a CRUSH ruleset and I'm using crushtool to test the rules, but it doesn't seem to mapping things correctly. I have two roots, on for spindles and another for SSD. I have two rules, one for each root. The output of crushtool on rule 0 shows objects being mapped to SSD OSDs when it should only be choosing spindles. I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong. I've tested the map on .93 and .80.8. The map is at http://pastebin.com/BjmuASX0 when running crushtool -i map.crush --test --num-rep 3 --rule 0 --simulate --show-mappings I'm getting mapping to OSDs 39 which are SSDs. The same happens when I run the SSD rule, I get OSDs from both roots. It is as if crushtool is not selecting the correct root. In fact both rules result in the same mapping: RNG rule 0 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 0 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 0 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 0 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 0 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 0 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 0 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 0 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 0 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 0 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 0 x 10 [18,6,41] ... RNG rule 1 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 1 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 1 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 1 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 1 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 1 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 1 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 1 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 1 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 1 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 1 x 10 [18,6,41] ... Thanks, ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Does crushtool --test --simulate do what cluster should do?
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11224 On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Gregory Farnum g...@gregs42.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Robert LeBlanc rob...@leblancnet.us wrote: I'm not sure why crushtool --test --simulate doesn't match what the cluster actually does, but the cluster seems to be executing the rules even though crushtool doesn't. Just kind of stinks that you have to test the rules on actual data. Should I create a ticket for this? Yes please! I'm not too familiar with the crushtool internals but the simulator code hasn't had too many eyeballs so it's hopefully not too hard a bug to fix. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Robert LeBlanc rob...@leblancnet.us wrote: I'm trying to create a CRUSH ruleset and I'm using crushtool to test the rules, but it doesn't seem to mapping things correctly. I have two roots, on for spindles and another for SSD. I have two rules, one for each root. The output of crushtool on rule 0 shows objects being mapped to SSD OSDs when it should only be choosing spindles. I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong. I've tested the map on .93 and .80.8. The map is at http://pastebin.com/BjmuASX0 when running crushtool -i map.crush --test --num-rep 3 --rule 0 --simulate --show-mappings I'm getting mapping to OSDs 39 which are SSDs. The same happens when I run the SSD rule, I get OSDs from both roots. It is as if crushtool is not selecting the correct root. In fact both rules result in the same mapping: RNG rule 0 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 0 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 0 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 0 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 0 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 0 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 0 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 0 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 0 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 0 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 0 x 10 [18,6,41] ... RNG rule 1 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 1 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 1 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 1 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 1 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 1 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 1 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 1 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 1 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 1 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 1 x 10 [18,6,41] ... Thanks, ___ 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
Re: [ceph-users] Does crushtool --test --simulate do what cluster should do?
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Robert LeBlanc rob...@leblancnet.us wrote: I'm not sure why crushtool --test --simulate doesn't match what the cluster actually does, but the cluster seems to be executing the rules even though crushtool doesn't. Just kind of stinks that you have to test the rules on actual data. Should I create a ticket for this? Yes please! I'm not too familiar with the crushtool internals but the simulator code hasn't had too many eyeballs so it's hopefully not too hard a bug to fix. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Robert LeBlanc rob...@leblancnet.us wrote: I'm trying to create a CRUSH ruleset and I'm using crushtool to test the rules, but it doesn't seem to mapping things correctly. I have two roots, on for spindles and another for SSD. I have two rules, one for each root. The output of crushtool on rule 0 shows objects being mapped to SSD OSDs when it should only be choosing spindles. I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong. I've tested the map on .93 and .80.8. The map is at http://pastebin.com/BjmuASX0 when running crushtool -i map.crush --test --num-rep 3 --rule 0 --simulate --show-mappings I'm getting mapping to OSDs 39 which are SSDs. The same happens when I run the SSD rule, I get OSDs from both roots. It is as if crushtool is not selecting the correct root. In fact both rules result in the same mapping: RNG rule 0 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 0 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 0 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 0 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 0 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 0 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 0 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 0 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 0 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 0 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 0 x 10 [18,6,41] ... RNG rule 1 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 1 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 1 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 1 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 1 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 1 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 1 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 1 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 1 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 1 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 1 x 10 [18,6,41] ... Thanks, ___ 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
[ceph-users] Does crushtool --test --simulate do what cluster should do?
I'm trying to create a CRUSH ruleset and I'm using crushtool to test the rules, but it doesn't seem to mapping things correctly. I have two roots, on for spindles and another for SSD. I have two rules, one for each root. The output of crushtool on rule 0 shows objects being mapped to SSD OSDs when it should only be choosing spindles. I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong. I've tested the map on .93 and .80.8. The map is at http://pastebin.com/BjmuASX0 when running crushtool -i map.crush --test --num-rep 3 --rule 0 --simulate --show-mappings I'm getting mapping to OSDs 39 which are SSDs. The same happens when I run the SSD rule, I get OSDs from both roots. It is as if crushtool is not selecting the correct root. In fact both rules result in the same mapping: RNG rule 0 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 0 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 0 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 0 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 0 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 0 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 0 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 0 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 0 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 0 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 0 x 10 [18,6,41] ... RNG rule 1 x 0 [0,38,23] RNG rule 1 x 1 [10,25,1] RNG rule 1 x 2 [11,40,0] RNG rule 1 x 3 [5,30,26] RNG rule 1 x 4 [44,30,10] RNG rule 1 x 5 [8,26,16] RNG rule 1 x 6 [24,5,36] RNG rule 1 x 7 [38,10,9] RNG rule 1 x 8 [39,9,23] RNG rule 1 x 9 [12,3,24] RNG rule 1 x 10 [18,6,41] ... Thanks, ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
