Greetings,

I am having issues in the way PGs are calculated in
https://ceph.com/pgcalc/ [Ceph
PGs per Pool Calculator ] and the formulae mentioned in the site.

Below are my findings

The formula to calculate PGs as mentioned in the https://ceph.com/pgcalc/ :

1.      Need to pick the highest value from either of the formulas

*(( Target PGs per OSD ) x ( OSD # ) x ( %Data ))/(size)*

Or

*( OSD# ) / ( Size )*

2.      The output value is then rounded to the nearest power of 2

   1. If the nearest power of 2 is more than 25% below the original value,
   the next higher power of 2 is used.



Based on the above procedure, we calculated PGs for 25, 32 and 64 OSDs

*Our Dataset:*

*%Data:* 0.10

*Target PGs per OSD:* 100

*OSDs* 25, 32 and 64



*For 25 OSDs*



(100*25* (0.10/100))/(3) = 0.833



( 25 ) / ( 3 ) = 8.33



1. Raw pg num 8.33  ( Since we need to pick the highest of (0.833, 8.33))

2. max pg 16 ( For, 8.33 the nearest power of 2 is 16)

3. 16 > 2.08  ( 25 % of 8.33 is 2.08 which is more than 25% the power of 2)



So 16 PGs

ü  GUI Calculator gives the same value and matches with Formula.



*For 32 OSD*



(100*32*(0.10/100))/3 = 1.066

( 32 ) / ( 3 ) = 10.66



1. Raw pg num 10.66 ( Since we need to pick the highest of (1.066, 10.66))

2. max pg 16 ( For, 10.66 the nearest power of 2 is 16)

3.  16 > 2.655 ( 25 % of 10.66 is 2.655 which is more than 25% the power of
2)



So 16 PGs

û  GUI Calculator gives different value (32 PGs) which doesn’t match with
Formula.



*For 64 OSD*



(100 * 64 * (0.10/100))/3 = 2.133

( 64 ) / ( 3 ) 21.33



1. Raw pg num 21.33 ( Since we need to pick the highest of (2.133, 21.33))

2. max pg 32 ( For, 21.33 the nearest power of 2 is 32)

3. 32 > 5.3325 ( 25 % of 21.33 is 5.3325 which is more than 25% the power
of 2)



So 32 PGs

û  GUI Calculator gives different value (64 PGs) which doesn’t match with
Formula.



We checked the PG calculator logic from [
https://ceph.com/pgcalc_assets/pgcalc.js ] which is not matching from above
formulae.



Can someone Guide/reference us to correct formulae to calculate PGs.



Thanks in advance.



Regards,

Krishna Venkata
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to