All of this data is test data, yeah? I would start by removing the cache-tier and pool, recreate it and attach it, configure all of the settings including the maximums, and start testing things again. I would avoid doing the 1.3TB file test until after you've confirmed that the smaller files are being flushed appropriately to the data pool (manually flushing/evicting it) and then scale up your testing to the larger files. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:54 PM Shawfeng Dong <s...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
> Curiously, it has been quite a while, but there is still no object in the > underlying data pool: > # rados -p cephfs_data ls > > Any advice? > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Notice in the URL for the documentation the use of "luminous". When you >> looked a few weeks ago, you might have been looking at the documentation >> for a different version of Ceph. You can change that to jewel, hammer, >> kraken, master, etc depending on which version of Ceph you are running or >> reading about. Google gets confused and will pull up random versions of >> the ceph documentation for a page. It's on us to make sure that the url is >> pointing to the version of Ceph that we are using. >> >> While it's sitting there in the flush command, can you see if there are >> any objects in the underlying data pool? Hopefully the count will be >> growing. >> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM Shawfeng Dong <s...@ucsc.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hi Christian, >>> >>> I set those via CLI: >>> # ceph osd pool set cephfs_cache target_max_bytes 1099511627776 >>> # ceph osd pool set cephfs_cache target_max_objects 1000000 >>> >>> but manual flushing doesn't appear to work: >>> # rados -p cephfs_cache cache-flush-evict-all >>> 1000000046a.00000ca6 >>> >>> it just gets stuck there for a long time. >>> >>> Any suggestion? Do I need to restart the daemons or reboot the nodes? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shaw >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:14:40 -0700 Shawfeng Dong wrote: >>>> >>>> > I found the command: rados -p cephfs_cache cache-flush-evict-all >>>> > >>>> That's not what you want/need. >>>> Though it will fix your current "full" issue. >>>> >>>> > The documentation ( >>>> > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/luminous/rados/operations/cache-tiering/) >>>> has >>>> > been improved a lot since I last checked it a few weeks ago! >>>> > >>>> The need to set max_bytes and max_objects has been documented for ages >>>> (since Hammer). >>>> >>>> more below... >>>> >>>> > -Shaw >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Shawfeng Dong <s...@ucsc.edu> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Thanks, Luis. >>>> > > >>>> > > I've just set max_bytes and max_objects: >>>> How? >>>> Editing the conf file won't help until a restart. >>>> >>>> > > target_max_objects: 1000000 (1M) >>>> > > target_max_bytes: 1099511627776 (1TB) >>>> > >>>> I'd lower that or the cache_target_full_ratio by another 10%. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> > > >>>> > > but nothing appears to be happening. Is there a way to force >>>> flushing? >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks, >>>> > > Shaw >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Luis Periquito <periqu...@gmail.com >>>> > >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Not looking at anything else, you didn't set the max_bytes or >>>> > >> max_objects for it to start flushing... >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Shawfeng Dong <s...@ucsc.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> > Dear all, >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Thanks a lot for the very insightful comments/suggestions! >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > There are 3 OSD servers in our pilot Ceph cluster, each with 2x >>>> 1TB SSDs >>>> > >> > (boot disks), 12x 8TB SATA HDDs and 2x 1.2TB NVMe SSDs. We use >>>> the >>>> > >> bluestore >>>> > >> > backend, with the first NVMe as the WAL and DB devices for OSDs >>>> on the >>>> > >> HDDs. >>>> > >> > And we try to create a cache tier out of the second NVMes. >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Here are the outputs of the commands suggested by David: >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > 1) # ceph df >>>> > >> > GLOBAL: >>>> > >> > SIZE AVAIL RAW USED %RAW USED >>>> > >> > 265T 262T 2847G 1.05 >>>> > >> > POOLS: >>>> > >> > NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL >>>> > >> OBJECTS >>>> > >> > cephfs_data 1 0 0 248T >>>> > >> 0 >>>> > >> > cephfs_metadata 2 8515k 0 248T >>>> > >> 24 >>>> > >> > cephfs_cache 3 1381G 100.00 0 >>>> > >> 355385 >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > 2) # ceph osd df >>>> > >> > 0 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 174 >>>> > >> > 1 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 169 >>>> > >> > 2 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>>> > >> > 3 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 159 >>>> > >> > 4 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>>> > >> > 5 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 162 >>>> > >> > 6 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 149 >>>> > >> > 7 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 179 >>>> > >> > 8 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 163 >>>> > >> > 9 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 194 >>>> > >> > 10 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 185 >>>> > >> > 11 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 168 >>>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 855G 262G 76.53 73.01 79 >>>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 180 >>>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 168 >>>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 178 >>>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 170 >>>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 149 >>>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 203 >>>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 173 >>>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 158 >>>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 154 >>>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 160 >>>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 167 >>>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 188 >>>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 1061G 57214M 95.00 90.63 98 >>>> > >> > 24 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 187 >>>> > >> > 25 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 200 >>>> > >> > 26 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 147 >>>> > >> > 27 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 171 >>>> > >> > 28 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 162 >>>> > >> > 29 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 152 >>>> > >> > 30 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 174 >>>> > >> > 31 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 176 >>>> > >> > 32 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 182 >>>> > >> > 33 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2072M 7450G 0.03 0.03 155 >>>> > >> > 34 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 166 >>>> > >> > 35 hdd 7.27829 1.00000 7452G 2076M 7450G 0.03 0.03 176 >>>> > >> > 38 nvme 1.09149 1.00000 1117G 857G 260G 76.71 73.18 79 >>>> > >> > TOTAL 265T 2847G 262T 1.05 >>>> > >> > MIN/MAX VAR: 0.03/90.63 STDDEV: 22.81 >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > 3) # ceph osd tree >>>> > >> > -1 265.29291 root default >>>> > >> > -3 88.43097 host pulpo-osd01 >>>> > >> > 0 hdd 7.27829 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 1 hdd 7.27829 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 2 hdd 7.27829 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 3 hdd 7.27829 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 4 hdd 7.27829 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 5 hdd 7.27829 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 6 hdd 7.27829 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 7 hdd 7.27829 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 8 hdd 7.27829 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 9 hdd 7.27829 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 10 hdd 7.27829 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 11 hdd 7.27829 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 osd.36 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > -5 88.43097 host pulpo-osd02 >>>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 osd.37 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 36 nvme 1.09149 osd.36 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > -5 88.43097 host pulpo-osd02 >>>> > >> > 12 hdd 7.27829 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 13 hdd 7.27829 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 14 hdd 7.27829 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 15 hdd 7.27829 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 16 hdd 7.27829 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 17 hdd 7.27829 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 18 hdd 7.27829 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 19 hdd 7.27829 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 20 hdd 7.27829 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 21 hdd 7.27829 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 22 hdd 7.27829 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 23 hdd 7.27829 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 37 nvme 1.09149 osd.37 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > -7 88.43097 host pulpo-osd03 >>>> > >> > 24 hdd 7.27829 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 25 hdd 7.27829 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 26 hdd 7.27829 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 27 hdd 7.27829 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 28 hdd 7.27829 osd.28 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 29 hdd 7.27829 osd.29 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 30 hdd 7.27829 osd.30 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 31 hdd 7.27829 osd.31 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 32 hdd 7.27829 osd.32 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 33 hdd 7.27829 osd.33 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 34 hdd 7.27829 osd.34 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 35 hdd 7.27829 osd.35 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > 38 nvme 1.09149 osd.38 up 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > 4) # ceph osd pool get cephfs_cache all >>>> > >> > min_size: 2 >>>> > >> > crash_replay_interval: 0 >>>> > >> > pg_num: 128 >>>> > >> > pgp_num: 128 >>>> > >> > crush_rule: pulpo_nvme >>>> > >> > hashpspool: true >>>> > >> > nodelete: false >>>> > >> > nopgchange: false >>>> > >> > nosizechange: false >>>> > >> > write_fadvise_dontneed: false >>>> > >> > noscrub: false >>>> > >> > nodeep-scrub: false >>>> > >> > hit_set_type: bloom >>>> > >> > hit_set_period: 14400 >>>> > >> > hit_set_count: 12 >>>> > >> > hit_set_fpp: 0.05 >>>> > >> > use_gmt_hitset: 1 >>>> > >> > auid: 0 >>>> > >> > target_max_objects: 0 >>>> > >> > target_max_bytes: 0 >>>> > >> > cache_target_dirty_ratio: 0.4 >>>> > >> > cache_target_dirty_high_ratio: 0.6 >>>> > >> > cache_target_full_ratio: 0.8 >>>> > >> > cache_min_flush_age: 0 >>>> > >> > cache_min_evict_age: 0 >>>> > >> > min_read_recency_for_promote: 0 >>>> > >> > min_write_recency_for_promote: 0 >>>> > >> > fast_read: 0 >>>> > >> > hit_set_grade_decay_rate: 0 >>>> > >> > crash_replay_interval: 0 >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Do you see anything wrong? We had written some small files to >>>> the CephFS >>>> > >> > before we tried to write the big 1TB file. What is puzzling to >>>> me is >>>> > >> that no >>>> > >> > data has been written back to the data pool. >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Best, >>>> > >> > Shaw >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:46 AM, David Turner < >>>> drakonst...@gmail.com> >>>> > >> wrote: >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 1:05 AM Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> Hello, >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 03:30:41 +0000 David Turner wrote: >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> > You're missing most all of the important bits. What the osds >>>> in your >>>> > >> >>> > cluster look like, your tree, and your cache pool settings. >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > ceph df >>>> > >> >>> > ceph osd df >>>> > >> >>> > ceph osd tree >>>> > >> >>> > ceph osd pool get cephfs_cache all >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> Especially the last one. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> My money is on not having set target_max_objects and >>>> target_max_bytes >>>> > >> to >>>> > >> >>> sensible values along with the ratios. >>>> > >> >>> In short, not having read the (albeit spotty) documentation. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> > You have your writeback cache on 3 nvme drives. It looks >>>> like you >>>> > >> have >>>> > >> >>> > 1.6TB available between them for the cache. I don't know the >>>> > >> behavior >>>> > >> >>> > of a >>>> > >> >>> > writeback cache tier on cephfs for large files, but I would >>>> guess >>>> > >> that >>>> > >> >>> > it >>>> > >> >>> > can only hold full files and not flush partial files. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> I VERY much doubt that, if so it would be a massive flaw. >>>> > >> >>> One assumes that cache operations work on the RADOS object >>>> level, no >>>> > >> >>> matter what. >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> I hope that it is on the rados level, but not a single object >>>> had been >>>> > >> >> flushed to the backing pool. So I hazarded a guess. Seeing his >>>> > >> settings will >>>> > >> >> shed more light. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> > That would mean your >>>> > >> >>> > cache needs to have enough space for any file being written >>>> to the >>>> > >> >>> > cluster. >>>> > >> >>> > In this case a 1.3TB file with 3x replication would require >>>> 3.9TB >>>> > >> (more >>>> > >> >>> > than double what you have available) of available space in >>>> your >>>> > >> >>> > writeback >>>> > >> >>> > cache. >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > There are very few use cases that benefit from a cache tier. >>>> The >>>> > >> docs >>>> > >> >>> > for >>>> > >> >>> > Luminous warn as much. >>>> > >> >>> You keep repeating that like a broken record. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> And while certainly not false I for one wouldn't be able to use >>>> > >> (justify >>>> > >> >>> using) Ceph w/o cache tiers in our main use case. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> In this case I assume they were following and old cheat sheet >>>> or such, >>>> > >> >>> suggesting the previously required cache tier with EC pools. >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/luminous/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> I know I keep repeating it, especially recently as there have >>>> been a >>>> > >> lot >>>> > >> >> of people asking about it. The Luminous docs added a large >>>> section >>>> > >> about how >>>> > >> >> it is probably not what you want. Like me, it is not saying >>>> that there >>>> > >> are >>>> > >> >> no use cases for it. There was no information provided about >>>> the use >>>> > >> case >>>> > >> >> and I made some suggestions/guesses. I'm also guessing that >>>> they are >>>> > >> >> following a guide where a writeback cache was necessary for >>>> CephFS to >>>> > >> use EC >>>> > >> >> prior to Luminous. I also usually add that people should test >>>> it out >>>> > >> and >>>> > >> >> find what works best for them. I will always defer to your >>>> practical >>>> > >> use of >>>> > >> >> cache tiers as well, especially when using rbds. >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> I manage a cluster that I intend to continue running a >>>> writeback cache >>>> > >> in >>>> > >> >> front of CephFS on the same drives as the EC pool. The use case >>>> > >> receives a >>>> > >> >> good enough benefit from the cache tier that it isn't even >>>> required to >>>> > >> use >>>> > >> >> flash media to see it. It is used for video editing and the >>>> files are >>>> > >> >> usually modified and read within the first 24 hours and then >>>> left in >>>> > >> cold >>>> > >> >> storage until deleted. I have the cache timed to keep >>>> everything in it >>>> > >> for >>>> > >> >> 24 hours and then evict it by using a minimum time to flush and >>>> evict >>>> > >> at 24 >>>> > >> >> hours and a target max bytes of 0. All files are in there for >>>> that >>>> > >> time and >>>> > >> >> then it never has to decide what to keep as it doesn't keep >>>> anything >>>> > >> longer >>>> > >> >> than that. Luckily read performance from cold storage is not a >>>> > >> requirement >>>> > >> >> of this cluster as any read operation has to first read it from >>>> EC >>>> > >> storage, >>>> > >> >> write it to replica storage, and then read it from replica >>>> storage... >>>> > >> Yuck. >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> Christian >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >What is your goal by implementing this cache? If the >>>> > >> >>> > answer is to utilize extra space on the nvmes, then just >>>> remove it >>>> > >> and >>>> > >> >>> > say >>>> > >> >>> > thank you. The better use of nvmes in that case are as a >>>> part of the >>>> > >> >>> > bluestore stack and give your osds larger DB partitions. >>>> Keeping >>>> > >> your >>>> > >> >>> > metadata pool on nvmes is still a good idea. >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 7:45 PM Shawfeng Dong <s...@ucsc.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > > Dear all, >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > We just set up a Ceph cluster, running the latest stable >>>> release >>>> > >> Ceph >>>> > >> >>> > > v12.2.0 (Luminous): >>>> > >> >>> > > # ceph --version >>>> > >> >>> > > ceph version 12.2.0 >>>> (32ce2a3ae5239ee33d6150705cdb24d43bab910c) >>>> > >> >>> > > luminous >>>> > >> >>> > > (rc) >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > The goal is to serve Ceph filesystem, for which we created >>>> 3 >>>> > >> pools: >>>> > >> >>> > > # ceph osd lspools >>>> > >> >>> > > 1 cephfs_data,2 cephfs_metadata,3 cephfs_cache, >>>> > >> >>> > > where >>>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_data is the data pool (36 OSDs on HDDs), which is >>>> > >> >>> > > erased-coded; >>>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_metadata is the metadata pool >>>> > >> >>> > > * cephfs_cache is the cache tier (3 OSDs on NVMes) for >>>> > >> cephfs_data. >>>> > >> >>> > > The >>>> > >> >>> > > cache-mode is writeback. >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > Everything had worked fine, until today when we tried to >>>> copy a >>>> > >> 1.3TB >>>> > >> >>> > > file >>>> > >> >>> > > to the CephFS. We got the "No space left on device" error! >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > 'ceph -s' says some OSDs are full: >>>> > >> >>> > > # ceph -s >>>> > >> >>> > > cluster: >>>> > >> >>> > > id: e18516bf-39cb-4670-9f13-88ccb7d19769 >>>> > >> >>> > > health: HEALTH_ERR >>>> > >> >>> > > full flag(s) set >>>> > >> >>> > > 1 full osd(s) >>>> > >> >>> > > 1 pools have many more objects per pg than >>>> average >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > services: >>>> > >> >>> > > mon: 3 daemons, quorum >>>> pulpo-admin,pulpo-mon01,pulpo-mds01 >>>> > >> >>> > > mgr: pulpo-mds01(active), standbys: pulpo-admin, >>>> pulpo-mon01 >>>> > >> >>> > > mds: pulpos-1/1/1 up {0=pulpo-mds01=up:active} >>>> > >> >>> > > osd: 39 osds: 39 up, 39 in >>>> > >> >>> > > flags full >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > data: >>>> > >> >>> > > pools: 3 pools, 2176 pgs >>>> > >> >>> > > objects: 347k objects, 1381 GB >>>> > >> >>> > > usage: 2847 GB used, 262 TB / 265 TB avail >>>> > >> >>> > > pgs: 2176 active+clean >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > io: >>>> > >> >>> > > client: 19301 kB/s rd, 2935 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > And indeed the cache pool is full: >>>> > >> >>> > > # rados df >>>> > >> >>> > > POOL_NAME USED OBJECTS CLONES COPIES >>>> MISSING_ON_PRIMARY >>>> > >> >>> > > UNFOUND >>>> > >> >>> > > DEGRADED RD_OPS RD >>>> > >> >>> > > WR_OPS WR >>>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_cache 1381G 355385 0 710770 >>>> 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 10004954 15 >>>> > >> >>> > > 22G 1398063 1611G >>>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_data 0 0 0 0 >>>> 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 0 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > cephfs_metadata 8515k 24 0 72 >>>> 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 >>>> > >> >>> > > 0 3 3 >>>> > >> >>> > > 072 3953 10541k >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > total_objects 355409 >>>> > >> >>> > > total_used 2847G >>>> > >> >>> > > total_avail 262T >>>> > >> >>> > > total_space 265T >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > However, the data pool is completely empty! So it seems >>>> that data >>>> > >> has >>>> > >> >>> > > only >>>> > >> >>> > > been written to the cache pool, but not written back to >>>> the data >>>> > >> >>> > > pool. >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > I am really at a loss whether this is due to a setup error >>>> on my >>>> > >> >>> > > part, or >>>> > >> >>> > > a Luminous bug. Could anyone shed some light on this? >>>> Please let >>>> > >> me >>>> > >> >>> > > know if >>>> > >> >>> > > you need any further info. >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > Best, >>>> > >> >>> > > Shaw >>>> > >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > >> >>> > > ceph-users mailing list >>>> > >> >>> > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>>> > >> >>> > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> -- >>>> > >> >>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>>> > >> >>> ch...@gol.com Rakuten Communications >>>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >> >>> 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 >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > >> > ceph-users mailing list >>>> > >> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>>> > >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>>> ch...@gol.com Rakuten Communications >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
