For the record, I am not seeing a demonstrative fix by injecting the value of 0 into the OSDs running. > osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid = '0.000000' (not observed, change may require > restart)
If it does indeed need to be restarted, I will need to wait for the current backfills to finish their process as restarting an OSD would bring me under min_size. However, doing config show on the osd daemon appears to have taken the value of 0. > ceph daemon osd.24 config show | grep recovery_sleep > "osd_recovery_sleep": "0.000000", > "osd_recovery_sleep_hdd": "0.100000", > "osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid": "0.000000", > "osd_recovery_sleep_ssd": "0.000000", I may take the restart as an opportunity to also move to 12.2.3 at the same time, since it is not expected that that should affect this issue. I could also attempt to change osd_recovery_sleep_hdd as well, since these are ssd osd’s, it shouldn’t make a difference, but its a free move. Thanks, Reed > On Feb 26, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:26 PM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com > <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 > <http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/23141>, > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/20602 > <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 <gfar...@redhat.com >> <mailto:gfar...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:21 AM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com >> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 <gfar...@redhat.com >>> <mailto:gfar...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:12 AM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com >>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 <drakonst...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:drakonst...@gmail.com>> 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/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg40256.html >>>> <https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg40256.html> >>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:46 AM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com >>>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 <reed.d...@focusvq.com >>>>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 <gfar...@redhat.com >>>>>> <mailto:gfar...@redhat.com>> 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 <reed.d...@focusvq.com >>>>>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> 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 >>>>>> <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 <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 >>>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>>>> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-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
