I have updated the tracker with some log extracts as I seem to be hitting this or a very similar issue.
I was unsure of the correct syntax for the command ceph-objectstore-tool to try and extract that information. On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Brad Hubbard <bhubb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Goncalo Borges < > goncalo.bor...@sydney.edu.au> wrote: > > Here it goes: > > > > # xfs_info /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-78 > > meta-data=/dev/sdu1 isize=2048 agcount=4, > agsize=183107519 blks > > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 > > = crc=0 finobt=0 > > data = bsize=4096 blocks=732430075, imaxpct=5 > > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357631, version=2 > > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > > > > > # xfs_info /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-49 > > meta-data=/dev/sde1 isize=2048 agcount=4, > agsize=183105343 blks > > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 > > = crc=0 finobt=0 > > data = bsize=4096 blocks=732421371, imaxpct=5 > > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357627, version=2 > > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > > > > > # xfs_info /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-59 > > meta-data=/dev/sdg1 isize=2048 agcount=4, > agsize=183105343 blks > > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 > > = crc=0 finobt=0 > > data = bsize=4096 blocks=732421371, imaxpct=5 > > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357627, version=2 > > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > OK, all look pretty similar so there goes that theory ;) > > I thought if one or more of the filesystems had a smaller isize they would > not > be able to store as many extended attributes and these would spill over > into > omap storage only on those OSDs. It's not that easy but it might be > something > similar given the ERANGE errors. > > I've assigned the tracker (thanks) to myself and will follow through on it. > Please give me a little time to look further into the ERANGE errors and > the logs > you provided (thanks again) and I'll update here and the tracker when I > know > more. > > -- > Cheers, > Brad > _______________________________________________ > 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
