That's what the formula on the ceph link arrives at, a 2/3 or 66.66% overhead. But if a 4 byte object is split into 4x1 byte chunks data (4 bytes total) + 2x 1 byte chunks parity (2 bytes total), you arrive at 6 bytes, which is 50% more than 4 bytes. So 50% overhead, vs. 33.33% overhead as the other formula arrives at. I'm curious what I'm missing.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:40 PM Alan Johnson <al...@supermicro.com> wrote: > It would be 4/(4+2) = 4/6 =2/3 or k/(k+m)? > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Orman <orma...@corenode.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:32 PM > To: ceph-users <ceph-users@ceph.io> > Subject: [ceph-users] Usable space vs. Overhead > > [CAUTION: External Mail] > > I'm having a hard time understanding the EC usable space vs. raw. > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ceph.io/geen-categorie/ceph-erasure-coding-overhead-in-a-nutshell/__;!!B4Ndrdkg3tRaKVT9!79nn4ZG7ADJCY7JEhJwbPvHUn8dvmzAYz9_z-BUG_7Pe0uUETMW_AwDPmgiU4dc$ > indicates "nOSD * k / (k+m) * OSD Size" is how you calculate usable space, > but that's not lining up with what i'd expect just from k data chunks + m > parity chunks. > > So, for example, k=4, m=2. you'd expect every 4 byte object written would > consume 6 bytes, so 50% overhead. however, the prior formula in a 7 server > cluster, using 4+2 encoding, would indicate 66.67% usable capacity vs. raw > storage. > > What am I missing here? > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an > email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
