On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Gregory Farnum <g...@inktank.com> wrote:
> 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.

Nope, all other osds have weight one(and each host contains two osds,
this many-disk system is an experimental one). This host had round
values recently, I`ve just changed weights a bit to test a speed of
data rearrangement. Problem existed since 10.5.0.52 entered to the
data placement with default ``1'' osd weights.

> -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

Reply via email to