On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:26 PM Reed Dier <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will try to set the hybrid sleeps to 0 on the affected OSDs as an
> interim solution to getting the metadata configured correctly.
>
Yes, that's a good workaround as long as you don't have any actual hybrid
OSDs (or aren't worried about them sleeping...I'm not sure if that setting
came from experience or not).
>
> For reference, here is the complete metadata for osd.24, bluestore SATA
> SSD with NVMe block.db.
>
> {
> "id": 24,
> "arch": "x86_64",
> "back_addr": "",
> "back_iface": "bond0",
> "bluefs": "1",
> "bluefs_db_access_mode": "blk",
> "bluefs_db_block_size": "4096",
> "bluefs_db_dev": "259:0",
> "bluefs_db_dev_node": "nvme0n1",
> "bluefs_db_driver": "KernelDevice",
> "bluefs_db_model": "INTEL SSDPEDMD400G4 ",
> "bluefs_db_partition_path": "/dev/nvme0n1p4",
> "bluefs_db_rotational": "0",
> "bluefs_db_serial": " ",
> "bluefs_db_size": "16000221184",
> "bluefs_db_type": "nvme",
> "bluefs_single_shared_device": "0",
> "bluefs_slow_access_mode": "blk",
> "bluefs_slow_block_size": "4096",
> "bluefs_slow_dev": "253:8",
> "bluefs_slow_dev_node": "dm-8",
> "bluefs_slow_driver": "KernelDevice",
> "bluefs_slow_model": "",
> "bluefs_slow_partition_path": "/dev/dm-8",
> "bluefs_slow_rotational": "0",
> "bluefs_slow_size": "1920378863616",
> "bluefs_slow_type": "ssd",
> "bluestore_bdev_access_mode": "blk",
> "bluestore_bdev_block_size": "4096",
> "bluestore_bdev_dev": "253:8",
> "bluestore_bdev_dev_node": "dm-8",
> "bluestore_bdev_driver": "KernelDevice",
> "bluestore_bdev_model": "",
> "bluestore_bdev_partition_path": "/dev/dm-8",
> "bluestore_bdev_rotational": "0",
> "bluestore_bdev_size": "1920378863616",
> "bluestore_bdev_type": "ssd",
> "ceph_version": "ceph version 12.2.2
> (cf0baeeeeba3b47f9427c6c97e2144b094b7e5ba) luminous (stable)",
> "cpu": "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz",
> "default_device_class": "ssd",
> "distro": "ubuntu",
> "distro_description": "Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS",
> "distro_version": "16.04",
> "front_addr": "",
> "front_iface": "bond0",
> "hb_back_addr": "",
> "hb_front_addr": "",
> "hostname": “host00",
> "journal_rotational": "1",
> "kernel_description": "#29~16.04.2-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jan 9 22:00:44
> UTC 2018",
> "kernel_version": "4.13.0-26-generic",
> "mem_swap_kb": "124999672",
> "mem_total_kb": "131914008",
> "os": "Linux",
> "osd_data": "/var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-24",
> "osd_objectstore": "bluestore",
> "rotational": "0"
> }
>
>
> So it looks like it correctly guessed(?) the
> bluestore_bdev_type/default_device_class correctly (though it may have been
> an inherited value?), as did bluefs_db_type get set to nvme correctly.
>
> So I’m not sure why journal_rotational is still showing 1.
> Maybe something in the ceph-volume lvm piece that isn’t correctly setting
> that flag on OSD creation?
> Also seems like the journal_rotational field should have been deprecated
> in bluestore as bluefs_db_rotational should cover that, and if there were a
> WAL partition as well, I assume there would be something to the tune of
> bluefs_wal_rotational or something like that, and journal would never be
> used for bluestore?
>
Thanks to both of you for helping diagnose this issue. I created a ticket
and have a PR up to fix it: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/23141,
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/20602
Until that gets backported into another Luminous release you'll need to do
some kind of workaround though. :/
-Greg
>
> Appreciate the help.
>
> Thanks,
> Reed
>
> On Feb 26, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Gregory Farnum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:21 AM Reed Dier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The ‘good perf’ that I reported below was the result of beginning 5 new
>> bluestore conversions which results in a leading edge of ‘good’
>> performance, before trickling off.
>>
>> This performance lasted about 20 minutes, where it backfilled a small set
>> of PGs off of non-bluestore OSDs.
>>
>> Current performance is now hovering around:
>>
>> pool objects-ssd id 20
>> recovery io 14285 kB/s, 202 objects/s
>>
>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>> recovery io 0 B/s, 262 keys/s, 12 objects/s
>> client io 412 kB/s rd, 67593 B/s wr, 5 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>
>>
>> What are you referencing when you talk about recovery ops per second?
>>
>> These are recovery ops as reported by ceph -s or via stats exported via
>> influx plugin in mgr, and via local collectd collection.
>>
>> Also, what are the values for osd_recovery_sleep_hdd
>> and osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid, and can you validate via "ceph osd metadata"
>> that your BlueStore SSD OSDs are correctly reporting both themselves and
>> their journals as non-rotational?
>>
>>
>> This yields more interesting results.
>> Pasting results for 3 sets of OSDs in this order
>> {0}hdd+nvme block.db
>> {24}ssd+nvme block.db
>> {59}ssd+nvme journal
>>
>> ceph osd metadata | grep 'id\|rotational'
>> "id": 0,
>> "bluefs_db_rotational": "0",
>> "bluefs_slow_rotational": "1",
>> "bluestore_bdev_rotational": "1",
>> * "journal_rotational": "1",*
>> "rotational": “1"
>>
>> "id": 24,
>> "bluefs_db_rotational": "0",
>> "bluefs_slow_rotational": "0",
>> "bluestore_bdev_rotational": "0",
>> * "journal_rotational": "1",*
>> "rotational": “0"
>>
>> "id": 59,
>> "journal_rotational": "0",
>> "rotational": “0"
>>
>>
>> I wonder if it matters/is correct to see "journal_rotational": “1” for
>> the bluestore OSD’s {0,24} with nvme block.db.
>>
>> Hope this may be helpful in determining the root cause.
>>
>
> If you have an SSD main store and a hard drive ("rotational") journal, the
> OSD will insert recovery sleeps from the osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid config
> option. By default that is .025 (seconds).
>
> I believe you can override the setting (I'm not sure how), but you really
> want to correct that flag at the OS layer. Generally when we see this
> there's a RAID card or something between the solid-state device and the
> host which is lying about the state of the world.
> -Greg
>
>
>>
>> If it helps, all of the OSD’s were originally deployed with ceph-deploy,
>> but are now being redone with ceph-volume locally on each host.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Reed
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Gregory Farnum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:12 AM Reed Dier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> After my last round of backfills completed, I started 5 more bluestore
>>> conversions, which helped me recognize a very specific pattern of
>>> performance.
>>>
>>> pool objects-ssd id 20
>>> recovery io 757 MB/s, 10845 objects/s
>>>
>>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>>> recovery io 0 B/s, 36265 keys/s, 1633 objects/s
>>> client io 2544 kB/s rd, 36788 B/s wr, 1 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>
>>>
>>> The “non-throttled” backfills are only coming from filestore SSD OSD’s.
>>> When backfilling from bluestore SSD OSD’s, they appear to be throttled
>>> at the aforementioned <20 ops per OSD.
>>>
>>
>> Wait, is that the current state? What are you referencing when you talk
>> about recovery ops per second?
>>
>> Also, what are the values for osd_recovery_sleep_hdd
>> and osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid, and can you validate via "ceph osd metadata"
>> that your BlueStore SSD OSDs are correctly reporting both themselves and
>> their journals as non-rotational?
>> -Greg
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This would corroborate why the first batch of SSD’s I migrated to
>>> bluestore were all at “full” speed, as all of the OSD’s they were
>>> backfilling from were filestore based, compared to increasingly bluestore
>>> backfill targets, leading to increasingly long backfill times as I move
>>> from one host to the next.
>>>
>>> Looking at the recovery settings, the recovery_sleep and
>>> recovery_sleep_ssd values across bluestore or filestore OSDs are showing as
>>> 0 values, which means no sleep/throttle if I am reading everything
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> sudo ceph daemon osd.73 config show | grep recovery
>>> "osd_allow_recovery_below_min_size": "true",
>>> "osd_debug_skip_full_check_in_recovery": "false",
>>> "osd_force_recovery_pg_log_entries_factor": "1.300000",
>>> "osd_min_recovery_priority": "0",
>>> "osd_recovery_cost": "20971520",
>>> "osd_recovery_delay_start": "0.000000",
>>> "osd_recovery_forget_lost_objects": "false",
>>> "osd_recovery_max_active": "35",
>>> "osd_recovery_max_chunk": "8388608",
>>> "osd_recovery_max_omap_entries_per_chunk": "64000",
>>> "osd_recovery_max_single_start": "1",
>>> "osd_recovery_op_priority": "3",
>>> "osd_recovery_op_warn_multiple": "16",
>>> "osd_recovery_priority": "5",
>>> "osd_recovery_retry_interval": "30.000000",
>>> * "osd_recovery_sleep": "0.000000",*
>>> "osd_recovery_sleep_hdd": "0.100000",
>>> "osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid": "0.025000",
>>> * "osd_recovery_sleep_ssd": "0.000000",*
>>> "osd_recovery_thread_suicide_timeout": "300",
>>> "osd_recovery_thread_timeout": "30",
>>> "osd_scrub_during_recovery": "false",
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the device class is configured correctly as far as I
>>> know, it all shows as ssd/hdd correctly in ceph osd tree.
>>>
>>> So hopefully this may be enough of a smoking gun to help narrow down
>>> where this may be stemming from.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Reed
>>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 10:04 AM, David Turner <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a [1] link to a ML thread tracking some slow backfilling on
>>> bluestore. It came down to the backfill sleep setting for them. Maybe it
>>> will help.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg40256.html
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:46 AM Reed Dier <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably unrelated, but I do keep seeing this odd negative objects
>>>> degraded message on the fs-metadata pool:
>>>>
>>>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>>>> -34/3 objects degraded (-1133.333%)
>>>> recovery io 0 B/s, 89 keys/s, 2 objects/s
>>>> client io 51289 B/s rd, 101 kB/s wr, 0 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don’t mean to clutter the ML/thread, however it did seem odd, maybe its
>>>> a culprit? Maybe its some weird sampling interval issue thats been solved
>>>> in 12.2.3?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Reed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Reed Dier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Below is ceph -s
>>>>
>>>> cluster:
>>>> id: {id}
>>>> health: HEALTH_WARN
>>>> noout flag(s) set
>>>> 260610/1068004947 objects misplaced (0.024%)
>>>> Degraded data redundancy: 23157232/1068004947 objects
>>>> degraded (2.168%), 332 pgs unclean, 328 pgs degraded, 328 pgs undersized
>>>>
>>>> services:
>>>> mon: 3 daemons, quorum mon02,mon01,mon03
>>>> mgr: mon03(active), standbys: mon02
>>>> mds: cephfs-1/1/1 up {0=mon03=up:active}, 1 up:standby
>>>> osd: 74 osds: 74 up, 74 in; 332 remapped pgs
>>>> flags noout
>>>>
>>>> data:
>>>> pools: 5 pools, 5316 pgs
>>>> objects: 339M objects, 46627 GB
>>>> usage: 154 TB used, 108 TB / 262 TB avail
>>>> pgs: 23157232/1068004947 objects degraded (2.168%)
>>>> 260610/1068004947 objects misplaced (0.024%)
>>>> 4984 active+clean
>>>> 183 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
>>>> 145 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait
>>>> 3 active+remapped+backfill_wait
>>>> 1 active+remapped+backfilling
>>>>
>>>> io:
>>>> client: 8428 kB/s rd, 47905 B/s wr, 130 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>> recovery: 37057 kB/s, 50 keys/s, 217 objects/s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also the two pools on the SSDs, are the objects pool at 4096 PG, and
>>>> the fs-metadata pool at 32 PG.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure the recovery is actually going slower, or are the
>>>> individual ops larger or more expensive?
>>>>
>>>> The objects should not vary wildly in size.
>>>> Even if they were differing in size, the SSDs are roughly idle in their
>>>> current state of backfilling when examining wait in iotop, or atop, or
>>>> sysstat/iostat.
>>>>
>>>> This compares to when I was fully saturating the SATA backplane with
>>>> over 1000MB/s of writes to multiple disks when the backfills were going
>>>> “full speed.”
>>>>
>>>> Here is a breakdown of recovery io by pool:
>>>>
>>>> pool objects-ssd id 20
>>>> recovery io 6779 kB/s, 92 objects/s
>>>> client io 3071 kB/s rd, 50 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>>>> recovery io 0 B/s, 28 keys/s, 2 objects/s
>>>> client io 109 kB/s rd, 67455 B/s wr, 1 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>> pool cephfs-hdd id 17
>>>> recovery io 40542 kB/s, 158 objects/s
>>>> client io 10056 kB/s rd, 142 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the 24 HDD’s are outperforming the 50 SSD’s for recovery and client
>>>> traffic at the moment, which seems conspicuous to me.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the OSD’s with recovery ops to the SSDs are reporting 8-12 ops,
>>>> with one OSD occasionally spiking up to 300-500 for a few minutes. Stats
>>>> being pulled by both local CollectD instances on each node, as well as the
>>>> Influx plugin in MGR as we evaluate that against collectd.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Reed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Gregory Farnum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's the output of "ceph -s" while this is happening?
>>>>
>>>> Is there some identifiable difference between these two states, like
>>>> you get a lot of throughput on the data pools but then metadata recovery is
>>>> slower?
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure the recovery is actually going slower, or are the
>>>> individual ops larger or more expensive?
>>>>
>>>> My WAG is that recovering the metadata pool, composed mostly of
>>>> directories stored in omap objects, is going much slower for some reason.
>>>> You can adjust the cost of those individual ops some by
>>>> changing osd_recovery_max_omap_entries_per_chunk (default: 8096), but I'm
>>>> not sure which way you want to go or indeed if this has anything to do with
>>>> the problem you're seeing. (eg, it could be that reading out the omaps is
>>>> expensive, so you can get higher recovery op numbers by turning down the
>>>> number of entries per request, but not actually see faster backfilling
>>>> because you have to issue more requests.)
>>>> -Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:57 PM Reed Dier <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am running into an odd situation that I cannot easily explain.
>>>>> I am currently in the midst of destroy and rebuild of OSDs from
>>>>> filestore to bluestore.
>>>>> With my HDDs, I am seeing expected behavior, but with my SSDs I am
>>>>> seeing unexpected behavior. The HDDs and SSDs are set in crush
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> My path to replacing the OSDs is to set the noout, norecover,
>>>>> norebalance flag, destroy the OSD, create the OSD back, (iterate n times,
>>>>> all within a single failure domain), unset the flags, and let it go. It
>>>>> finishes, rinse, repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the SSD OSDs, they are SATA SSDs (Samsung SM863a) , 10 to a node,
>>>>> with 2 NVMe drives (Intel P3700), 5 SATA SSDs to 1 NVMe drive, 16G
>>>>> partitions for block.db (previously filestore journals).
>>>>> 2x10GbE networking between the nodes. SATA backplane caps out at
>>>>> around 10 Gb/s as its 2x 6 Gb/s controllers. Luminous 12.2.2.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the flags are unset, recovery starts and I see a very large rush
>>>>> of traffic, however, after the first machine completed, the performance
>>>>> tapered off at a rapid pace and trickles. Comparatively, I’m getting
>>>>> 100-200 recovery ops on 3 HDDs, backfilling from 21 other HDDs, where as
>>>>> I’m getting 150-250 recovery ops on 5 SSDs, backfilling from 40 other
>>>>> SSDs.
>>>>> Every once in a while I will see a spike up to 500, 1000, or even 2000 ops
>>>>> on the SSDs, often a few hundred recovery ops from one OSD, and 8-15 ops
>>>>> from the others that are backfilling.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a far cry from the more than 15-30k recovery ops that it
>>>>> started off recovering with 1-3k recovery ops from a single OSD to the
>>>>> backfilling OSD(s). And an even farther cry from the >15k recovery ops I
>>>>> was sustaining for over an hour or more before. I was able to rebuild a
>>>>> 1.9T SSD (1.1T used) in a little under an hour, and I could do about 5 at
>>>>> a
>>>>> time and still keep it at roughly an hour to backfill all of them, but
>>>>> then
>>>>> I hit a roadblock after the first machine, when I tried to do 10 at a time
>>>>> (single machine). I am now still experiencing the same thing on the third
>>>>> node, while doing 5 OSDs at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pools associated with these SSDs are cephfs-metadata, as well as a
>>>>> pure rados object pool we use for our own internal applications. Both are
>>>>> size=3, min_size=2.
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears I am not the first to run into this, but it looks like
>>>>> there was no resolution:
>>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg41493.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Recovery parameters for the OSDs match what was in the previous
>>>>> thread, sans the osd conf block listed. And current osd_max_backfills = 30
>>>>> and osd_recovery_max_active = 35. Very little activity on the OSDs during
>>>>> this period, so should not be any contention for iops on the SSDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only oddity that I can attribute to things is that we had a few
>>>>> periods of time where the disk load on one of the mons was high enough to
>>>>> cause the mon to drop out of quorum for a brief amount of time, a few
>>>>> times. But I wouldn’t think backfills would just get throttled due to mons
>>>>> flapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully someone has some experience or can steer me in a path to
>>>>> improve the performance of the backfills so that I’m not stuck in backfill
>>>>> purgatory longer than I need to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linking an imgur album with some screen grabs of the recovery ops over
>>>>> time for the first machine, versus the second and third machines to
>>>>> demonstrate the delta between them.
>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/OJw4b
>>>>>
>>>>> Also including a ceph osd df of the SSDs, highlighted in red are the
>>>>> OSDs currently backfilling. Could this possibly be PG overdose? I don’t
>>>>> ever run into ‘stuck activating’ PGs, its just painfully slow backfills,
>>>>> like they are being throttled by ceph, that are causing me to worry.
>>>>> Drives
>>>>> aren’t worn, <30 P/E cycles on the drives, so plenty of life left in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Reed
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ceph osd df
>>>>> ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE USE AVAIL %USE VAR PGS
>>>>> 24 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1094G 708G 60.69 1.08 260
>>>>> 25 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1136G 667G 63.01 1.12 271
>>>>> 26 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1018G 785G 56.46 1.01 243
>>>>> 27 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1065G 737G 59.10 1.05 253
>>>>> 28 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1026G 776G 56.94 1.02 245
>>>>> 29 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1132G 671G 62.79 1.12 270
>>>>> 30 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 944G 859G 52.35 0.93 224
>>>>> 31 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1061G 742G 58.85 1.05 252
>>>>> 32 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1003G 799G 55.67 0.99 239
>>>>> 33 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1049G 753G 58.20 1.04 250
>>>>> 34 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1086G 717G 60.23 1.07 257
>>>>> 35 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 978G 824G 54.26 0.97 232
>>>>> 36 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1057G 745G 58.64 1.05 252
>>>>> 37 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1025G 777G 56.88 1.01 244
>>>>> 38 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1047G 756G 58.06 1.04 250
>>>>> 39 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1031G 771G 57.20 1.02 246
>>>>> 40 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1029G 774G 57.07 1.02 245
>>>>> 41 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1033G 770G 57.28 1.02 245
>>>>> 42 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 993G 809G 55.10 0.98 236
>>>>> 43 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1072G 731G 59.45 1.06 256
>>>>> 44 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1039G 763G 57.64 1.03 248
>>>>> 45 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 992G 810G 55.06 0.98 236
>>>>> 46 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1068G 735G 59.23 1.06 254
>>>>> 47 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1020G 783G 56.57 1.01 242
>>>>> 48 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 945G 857G 52.44 0.94 225
>>>>> 49 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 649G 1154G 36.01 0.64 139
>>>>> 50 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 426G 1377G 23.64 0.42 83
>>>>> 51 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 610G 1193G 33.84 0.60 131
>>>>> 52 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 558G 1244G 30.98 0.55 118
>>>>> 53 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 731G 1072G 40.54 0.72 161
>>>>> 54 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 859G 928G 48.06 0.86 229
>>>>> 55 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 942G 844G 52.74 0.94 252
>>>>> 56 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 928G 859G 51.94 0.93 246
>>>>> 57 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1039G 748G 58.15 1.04 277
>>>>> 58 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 963G 824G 53.87 0.96 255
>>>>> 59 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 909G 877G 50.89 0.91 241
>>>>> 60 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1039G 748G 58.15 1.04 277
>>>>> 61 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 892G 895G 49.91 0.89 238
>>>>> 62 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 927G 859G 51.90 0.93 245
>>>>> 63 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 864G 922G 48.39 0.86 229
>>>>> 64 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 968G 819G 54.16 0.97 257
>>>>> 65 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 892G 894G 49.93 0.89 237
>>>>> 66 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 951G 836G 53.23 0.95 252
>>>>> 67 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 878G 908G 49.16 0.88 232
>>>>> 68 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 899G 888G 50.29 0.90 238
>>>>> 69 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 948G 839G 53.04 0.95 252
>>>>> 70 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 914G 873G 51.15 0.91 246
>>>>> 71 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1004G 782G 56.21 1.00 266
>>>>> 72 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 812G 974G 45.47 0.81 216
>>>>> 73 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 932G 855G 52.15 0.93 247
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
