[ceph-users] HELP with some basics please

tim taler robur314 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 03:12:26 PST 2017


Hi,

thnx a lot for the quick response
and for laying out some of the issues

> I'm also new, but I'll try to help. IMHO most of the pros here would be quite worried about this cluster if it is production:

thought so ;-/

> -A prod ceph cluster should not be run with size=2 min_size=1, because:
> --In case of a down'ed osd / host the cluster could have problems determining which data is the correct when the osd/host came back up

Uhm  I thought at least THAT wouldn't be the case here since we hace
three mons??
don't THEY keep track of which osd has the latest data
isn't the size set on the pool level not on the cluster level??

> --If an osd dies, the others get more io (has to compensate the lost io capacity and the rebuilding too) which can instantly kill another close to death disc (not with ceph, but with raid i have been there)
> --If an osd dies ANY other osd serving that pool has well placed inconsistency, like bitrot you'll lose data

good point, with scrubbing the checksums of the the objects are checked, right?
can I get somewhere the report how much errors where found by the last
scrub run (like in zpool status)
to estimate how well a disk is doing (right now the raid controller
won't let me read the smart data from the disks)


> -There are not enough hosts in your setup, or rather the discs are not distributed well:
> --If an osd / host dies, the cluster trys to repair itself and relocate the data onto another host. In your config there is no other host to reallocate data to if ANY of the hosts fail (I guess that hdds and ssds are separated)
Yupp, HDD and SDD form seperate pools.
Good point, not in my list of arguments yet

> -The disks should nod be placed in raid arrays if it can be avoided especially raid0:
> --You multiply the possibility of an un-recoverable disc error (and since the data is striped) the other disks data is unrecoverable too
> --When an osd dies, the cluster should relocate the data onto another osd. When this happens now there is double the data that need to be moved, this causes 2 problems: Recovery time / io, and free space. The cluster should have enough free space to reallocate data to, in this setup you cannot do that in case of a host dies (see above), but in case an osd dies, ceph would try to replicate the data onto other osds in the machine. So you have to have enough free space on >>the same host<< in this setup to replicate data to.

ON THE SAME MACHINE ?
is that so?
So than there should be at the BARE MINIMUM always be more free space
on each machine than the biggest OSD it hosts, right?

> In your case, I would recommend:
> -Introducing (and activating) a fourth osd host
> -setting size=3 min_size=2

that will be difficult, can't I run size=3 min_size=2 with three hosts?

> -After data migration is done, one-by-one separating the raid0 arrays: (remove, split) -> (zap, init, add) separately, in such a manner that hdds and ssds are evenly distributed across the servers

from what I understand the sizes of OSDs can vary
and the weight setting in our setup seems plausible to me (it's
directly derived from the size of the osd)
why than are the not filled on the same level nor even tending to
being filled the same?
does ceph by itself include other measurements like latency of the
OSD? that would explain why the raid0 OSDs have so much more data
than the single disks, but I haven't seen anything about that in the
docus (so far?)

> -Always keeping that much free space, so the cluster could lose a host and still has space to repair (calculating with the repair max usage % setting).

thnx again!
yupp that was helpfull

> I hope this helps, and please keep in mind that I'm a noob too :)
>
> Denes.
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 10:07 AM, tim taler wrote:
>
> Hi
> I'm new to ceph but have to honor to look after a cluster that I haven't set up by myself.
> Rushing to the ceph docs and having a first glimpse on our cluster I start worrying about our setup,
> so I need some advice and guidance here.
>
> The set up is:
> 3 machines, each running a ceph-monitor.
> all of them are also hosting OSDs
>
> machine A:
> 2 OSDs, each 3.6 TB - consisitng of 1 disk each (spinning disk)
> 3 OSDs, each 3.6 TB - consisting each of a 2 disk hardware-raid 0 (spinning disk)
> 3 OSDs, each 1.8 TB - consisting each of a 2 disk hardware-raid 0 (spinning disk)
>
> machine B:
> 3 OSDs, each 3.6 TB - consisitng of 1 disk each (spinning disk)
> 3 OSDs, each 3.6 TB - consisting each of a 2 disk hardware-raid 0 (spinning disk)
> 1 OSDs, each 1.8 TB - consisting each of a 2 disk hardware-raid 0 (spinning disk)
>
> 3 OSDs, each, 0.7 TB - consisitng of 1 disk each (SSD)
>
> machine C:
> 3 OSDs, each, 0.7 TB - consisitng of 1 disk each (SSD)
>
> the spinning disks and the SSD disks are forming two seperate pools.
>
> Now what I'm worrying about is that I read "don't use raid together with ceph"
> in combination with our poolsize
> :~ ceph osd pool get <poolname> size
> size: 2
>
> From what I understand from the ceph docu the size tell me "how many disks may fail" without loosing the data of the whole pool.
> Is that right? or can HALF the OSDs fail (since all objects are duplicated)?
>
> Unfortunately I'm not very good in stochastic but given a probability of 1% disk failure per year
> I'm not feeling very secure with this set up (How do I calculate the value that two disks fail "at the same time"? - or ahs anybody a rough number about that?)
> although looking at our OSD tree it seems we try to spread the objects always between two peers:
>
> ID  CLASS WEIGHT   TYPE NAME                      STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF
> -19        4.76700 root here_ssd
> -15        2.38350     room 2_ssd
> -14        2.38350         rack 2_ssd
>  -4        2.38350             host B_ssd
>   4   hdd  0.79449                 osd.4              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   5   hdd  0.79449                 osd.5              up  1.00000 1.00000
>  13   hdd  0.79449                 osd.13             up  1.00000 1.00000
> -18        2.38350     room 1_ssd
> -17        2.38350         rack 1_ssd
>  -5        2.38350             host C_ssd
>   0   hdd  0.79449                 osd.0              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   1   hdd  0.79449                 osd.1              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   2   hdd  0.79449                 osd.2              up  1.00000 1.00000
>  -1       51.96059 root here_spinning
> -12       25.98090     room 2_spinning
> -11       25.98090         rack 2_spinning
>  -2       25.98090             host B_spinning
>   3   hdd  3.99959                 osd.3              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   8   hdd  3.99429                 osd.8              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   9   hdd  3.99429                 osd.9              up  1.00000 1.00000
>  10   hdd  3.99429                 osd.10             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  11   hdd  1.99919                 osd.11             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  12   hdd  3.99959                 osd.12             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  20   hdd  3.99959                 osd.20             up  1.00000 1.00000
> -10       25.97969     room 1_spinning
>  -8       25.97969         rack l1_spinning
>  -3       25.97969             host A_spinning
>   6   hdd  3.99959                 osd.6              up  1.00000 1.00000
>   7   hdd  3.99959                 osd.7              up  1.00000 1.00000
>  14   hdd  3.99429                 osd.14             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  15   hdd  3.99429                 osd.15             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  16   hdd  3.99429                 osd.16             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  17   hdd  1.99919                 osd.17             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  18   hdd  1.99919                 osd.18             up  1.00000 1.00000
>  19   hdd  1.99919                 osd.19             up  1.00000 1.00000
>
>
>
> And the second question
> I tracked the disk usage of our OSDs over the last two weeks and it looks somehow strange too:
> While osd.14, and osd.20 are filled only well below 60%
> the osd 9,16 and 18 are well about 80%
> graphing that shows pretty stable parallel lines, with no hint of convergence
> That's true for both the HDD and the SSD pool.
> How is that and why and is that normal and okay or is there a(nother) glitch in our config?
>
> any hints and comments are welcome
>
> TIA
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>


More information about the ceph-users mailing list