The total used/available/capacity is calculated by running the syscall
which "df" uses across all OSDs and summing the results. The "total data"
is calculated by summing the sizes of the objects stored.

It depends on how you've configured your system, but I'm guessing the
markup is due to the (constant size) overhead of your journals. Or anything
else which you might have stored on the disks besides Ceph?
-Greg

On Thursday, June 19, 2014, <george.ry...@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> I’m struggling to understand some Ceph usage statistics and I was hoping
> someone might be able to explain them to me.
>
>
>
> If I run ‘rados df’ I get the following:
>
> # rados df
>
> pool name     category                 KB      objects       clones
> degraded      unfound           rd        rd KB           wr        wr KB
>
> pool-1        -                          0            0
> 0            0           0            0            0
> 0            0
>
> pool-2        -                    2339809         1299
> 0            0           0          300       540600         3301
> 2340798
>
> pool-3        -                    4095749        14654
> 0            0           0         3969        17256      3337952
> 70296734
>
> pool-4        -                    1802832        39332
> 0            0           0            0            0
> 2205979            0
>
> pool-5        -                  193102485        82397
> 0            0           0       668938    102410614      5230404
> 254457331
>
>   total used      5402116076       137682
>
>   total avail   854277445084
>
>   total space   859679561160
>
>
>
> Pools 2 and 4 have a size of 2, whilst pools 3 and 5 have a size of 3.
>
>
>
> ‘ceph status’ tells me the following stats: “192 GB data, 134 kobjects,
> 5151 GB used, 795 TB / 800 TB avail”
>
>
>
> The 192 GB of data is equal to the sum of the ‘KB’ column of the rados df
> data.  The used and available numbers are the same the totals given by
> rados df.
>
>
>
> What I don’t understand is how we have used 5,151 GB of data. Given the
> sizes of each pool I would expect it to be closer to 572 GB (sum of the
> size of each pool multiplied by pool ‘size’)   plus some overhead of some
> kind. This is a factor of 9 different. So my question is:  what have I
> missed?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> George Ryall
>
>
> Scientific Computing | STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory | Harwell
> Oxford | Didcot | OX11 0QX
>
> (01235 44) 5021
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>

-- 
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