[ceph-users] Uneven CPU usage on OSD nodes

Hi to the ceph-users list ! We're setting up a new Ceph infrastructure : - 1 MDS admin node - 4 OSD storage nodes (60 OSDs) each of them running a monitor - 1 client Each 32GB RAM/16 cores OSD node supports 15 x 4TB SAS OSDs (XFS) and 1 SSD with 5GB journal partitions, all in JBOD attachement

Re: [ceph-users] Uneven CPU usage on OSD nodes

pect that you have more primaries on the hot nodes. Since you're testing, try repeating the test on 3 OSD nodes instead of 4. If you don't want to run that test, you can generate a histogram from ceph pg dump data, and see if there are more primary osds (the first one in the acting a

Re: [ceph-users] Uneven CPU usage on OSD nodes

n_initial_members = helga mon_host = X.Y.Z.64 auth_cluster_required = cephx auth_service_required = cephx auth_client_required = cephx filestore_xattr_use_omap = true public_network = X.Y.0.0/16 Regards, Frederic Thanks & Regards Somnath *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun..

Re: [ceph-users] Uneven CPU usage on OSD nodes

, puppetized and dedicated to their OSD-node role. I don't know if that's a possibility, but third way : the tools collect/deliver wrong informations and don't show all the CPU cycles implied Frederic Gregory Farnum a écrit le 23/03/15 15:04 : On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:31 AM,

Re: [ceph-users] Uneven CPU usage on OSD nodes

has more memory pressure as well (and that’s why tcmalloc also having that issue). Can you give us output of ‘ceph osd tree’ to check if the load distribution is even ? Also, check if those systems are swapping or not. Hope this helps. Thanks & Regards Somnath *From:* f...@uni

Re: [ceph-users] SSD Hardware recommendation

Hi, in our quest to get the right SSD for OSD journals, I managed to benchmark two kind of "10 DWPD" SSDs : - Toshiba M2 PX02SMF020 - Samsung 845DC PRO I wan't to determine if a disk is appropriate considering its absolute performances, and the optimal number of ceph-osd processes using the S

[ceph-users] Inconsistent "ceph-deploy disk list" command results

Hi all, I want to alert on a command we've learned to avoid for its inconsistent results. on Giant 0.87.1 and Hammer 0.93.0 (ceph-deploy-1.5.22-0.noarch was used in both cases) "ceph-deploy disk list" command has a problem. We should get an exhaustive list of devices entries, like this one

Re: [ceph-users] Inconsistent "ceph-deploy disk list" command results

thing once before, but at the time didn't have the chance to check if the inconsistency was coming from ceph-deploy or from ceph-disk. This certainly seems to point at ceph-deploy! - Travis On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:15 AM, f...@univ-lr.fr wrote: Hi all, I want to alert on a command

Re: [ceph-users] SSD Hardware recommendation

ad on 4k blocks for the price. The benchs were made on Dell R730xd with H730P SAS controller (LSI 3108 12GB/s SAS) Frederic f...@univ-lr.fr a écrit le 31/03/15 14:09 : Hi, in our quest to get the right SSD for OSD journals, I managed to benchmark two kind of "10 DWPD" SSDs :

[ceph-users] Still CRUSH problems with 0.94.1 ?

Hi all, may there be a problem with the crush function during 'from scratch' installation of 0.94.1-0 ? This has been tested many times, with ceph-deploy-1.5.22-0 or ceph-deploy-1.5.23-0. Platform RHEL7. Each time, the new cluster ends up in a weird state never seen on my previous installe

Re: [ceph-users] Still CRUSH problems with 0.94.1 ? (explained)

nt to the physical interface. Now the question, as it compromises redundancy, is this comportment by design ? Frederic f...@univ-lr.fr a écrit le 21/04/15 15:03 : Hi all, may there be a problem with the crush function during 'from scratch' installation of 0.94.1-0 ? This has