On Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > Hi, > > from osd tree: > > -16 4.95 host 10.5.0.52 > 32 1.9 osd.32 up 2 > 33 1.05 osd.33 up 1 > 34 1 osd.34 up 1 > 35 1 osd.35 up 1 > > df -h: > /dev/sdd3 3.7T 595G 3.1T 16% /var/lib/ceph/osd/32 > /dev/sde3 3.7T 332G 3.4T 9% /var/lib/ceph/osd/33 > /dev/sdf3 3.7T 322G 3.4T 9% /var/lib/ceph/osd/34 > /dev/sdg3 3.7T 320G 3.4T 9% /var/lib/ceph/osd/35 > > -10 2 host 10.5.0.32 > 18 1 osd.18 up 1 > 26 1 osd.26 up 1 > > df -h: > /dev/sda2 926G 417G 510G 45% /var/lib/ceph/osd/18 > /dev/sdb2 926G 431G 496G 47% /var/lib/ceph/osd/26 > > Since osds on 10.5.0.32 does not contain garbage bytes almost for > sure, seems to be some weirdness in the placement. Crush rules are > almost default, there is no adjustment by node subsets. Any thoughts > will be appreciated! > Do you have any other nodes? What's the rest of your osd tree look like?
I do note that at a first glance, you've got 1569GB in 10.5.0.52 and 848 in 10.5.0.32, which is a 1.85 differential when you'd really like a ~2.5 differential (based on the very odd CRUSH weights you've assigned to each device, and the hosts). I suspect/hope you've also got something weird going on with the rest of your interior nodes (not pictured here), but perhaps not — and either way I'd recommend fixing up the rest of your weights and seeing if that improves the distribution. -Greg Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
