That seems like it. Thanks a lot Serkan! On 26 Nov 2019 Tue at 20:08 Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe following link helps... > https://www.spinics.net/lists/dev-ceph/msg00795.html > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:17 PM Erdem Agaoglu <erdem.agao...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I thought of that but it doesn't make much sense. AFAICT min_size should > block IO when i lose 3 osds, but it shouldn't effect the amount of the > stored data. Am i missing something? > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:04 AM Konstantin Shalygin <k0...@k0ste.ru> > wrote: > >> > >> On 11/25/19 6:05 PM, Erdem Agaoglu wrote: > >> > >> > >> What I can't find is the 138,509 G difference between the > ceph_cluster_total_used_bytes and ceph_pool_stored_raw. This is not static > BTW, checking the same data historically shows we have about 1.12x of what > we expect. This seems to make our 1.5x EC overhead a 1.68x overhead in > reality. Anyone have any ideas for why this is the case? > >> > >> May be min_size related? Because you are right, 6+3 is a 1.50, but 6+3 > (+1) is a your calculated 1.67. > >> > >> > >> > >> k > > > > > > > > -- > > erdem agaoglu > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > -- erdem agaoglu
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
