[ceph-users] Re: Odd auto-scaler warnings about too few/many PGs

2024-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:35 AM Torkil Svensgaard wrote: > > The most weird one: > > Pool rbd_ec_data stores 683TB in 4096 pgs -> warn should be 1024 > Pool rbd_internal stores 86TB in 1024 pgs-> warn should be 2048 > > That makes no sense to me based on the amount of data stored. Is this a > bug

[ceph-users] Re: Ceph newbee questions

2023-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
Disclaimer: I'm fairly new to Ceph, but I've read a bunch of threads on the min_size=1 issue as that was perplexing me when I started, as one replica is generally considered fine in many other applications. However, there really are some unique concerns to Ceph beyond just the number of disks you

[ceph-users] Re: EC Profiles & DR

2023-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 9:25 AM Patrick Begou wrote: > > My understood was that k and m were for EC chunks not hosts.  Of > course if k and m are hosts the best choice would be k=2 and m=2. A few others have already replied - as they said if the failure domain is set to host then it will put

[ceph-users] Re: EC Profiles & DR

2023-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 6:35 AM Patrick Begou wrote: > > Ok, so I've misunderstood the meaning of failure domain. If there is no > way to request using 2 osd/node and node as failure domain, with 5 nodes > k=3+m=1 is not secure enough and I will have to use k=2+m=2, so like a > raid1 setup. A

[ceph-users] Re: EC Profiles & DR

2023-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 5:16 AM Patrick Begou wrote: > > On my side, I'm working on building my first (small) Ceph cluster using > E.C. and I was thinking about 5 nodes and k=4 m=2. With a failure domain > on host and several osd by nodes, in my mind this setup may run degraded > with 3 nodes

[ceph-users] Re: Best Practice for OSD Balancing

2023-11-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:25 PM Anthony D'Atri wrote: > Looks like one 100GB SSD OSD per host? This is AIUI the screaming minimum > size for an OSD. With WAL, DB, cluster maps, and other overhead there > doesn’t end up being much space left for payload data. On larger OSDs the > overhead is

[ceph-users] Re: Best Practice for OSD Balancing

2023-11-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 3:52 PM Anthony D'Atri wrote: > > Very small and/or non-uniform clusters can be corner cases for many things, > especially if they don’t have enough PGs. What is your failure domain — host > or OSD? Failure domain is host, and PG number should be fairly reasonable. >

[ceph-users] Best Practice for OSD Balancing

2023-11-28 Thread Rich Freeman
I'm fairly new to Ceph and running Rook on a fairly small cluster (half a dozen nodes, about 15 OSDs). I notice that OSD space use can vary quite a bit - upwards of 10-20%. In the documentation I see multiple ways of managing this, but no guidance on what the "correct" or best way to go about