Hi all,
quick update: looks like copying OSDs does indeed deflate the objects with
partial overwrites in an EC pool again:
osd df tree blue stats
ID SIZE USE alloc store
87 8.9 6.6 6.6 4.6 <-- old disk with inflated objects
294 11 1.9 1.9 2.0 <-- new disk (still beckfilling)
Even the small effect of compression is visible.
I need to migrate everything to LVM at some point any ways. Seems like all
static data will get cleaned up along the way. It was probably the copy process
with too small write size causing the trouble. Unfortunately, the tool we are
using does not have an option to change that.
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
Sent: 01 August 2020 10:53:29
To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
Hi Frank,
On 7/31/2020 10:31 AM, Frank Schilder wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> thanks. I guess the problem with finding the corresponding images is, that it
> happens on bluestore and not on object level. Even if I listed all rados
> objects and added their sizes I would not see the excess storage.
>
> Thinking about working around this issue, would re-writing the objects
> deflate the exces usage? For example, evacuating an OSD and adding it back to
> the pool after it was empty, would this re-write the objects on this OSD
> without the overhead?
May be but I can't say for sure..
>
> Or simply copying an entire RBD image, would the copy be deflated?
>
> Although the latter options sound a bit crazy, one could do this without
> (much) downtime of VMs and it might get us through this migration.
Also you might want to try pg export/import using ceph-objectstore-tool.
See https://ceph.io/geen-categorie/incomplete-pgs-oh-my/ for some hints
how to do that.
But again I'm not certain if it's helpful. Preferably to try with some
non-production cluster first...
>
> Best regards,
> =================
> Frank Schilder
> AIT Risø Campus
> Bygning 109, rum S14
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
> Sent: 30 July 2020 15:40
> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> On 7/30/2020 11:19 AM, Frank Schilder wrote:
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> thanks for looking at this. Here a few thoughts:
>>
>> The copy goes to NTFS. I would expect between 2-4 meta data operations per
>> write, which would go to few existing objects. I guess the difference
>> bluestore_write_small-bluestore_write_small_new are mostly such writes and
>> are susceptible to the partial overwrite amplification. A first question is,
>> how many objects are actually affected? 30000 small writes does not mean
>> 30000 objects have partial overwrites.
>>
>> The large number of small_new is indeed strange, although these would not
>> lead to excess allocations. It is possible that the write size of the copy
>> tool is not ideal, was wondering about this too. I will investigate.
> small_new might relate to small tailing chunks that presumably appear
> when doing unaligned appends. Each such append triggers small_new write...
>
>
>> To know more, I would need to find out which images these small writes come
>> from, we have more than one active. Is there a low-level way to find out
>> which objects are affected by partial overwrites and which image they belong
>> to? In your post you were describing some properties like being
>> shared/cloned etc. Can one search for such objects?
> IMO raising debug bluestore to 10 (or even 20) and subsequent OSD log
> inspection is likely to be the only mean to learn which objects OSD is
> processing... Be careful - this produces significant amount of data and
> negatively impact the performance.
>> On a more fundamental level, I'm wondering why RBD images issue sub-object
>> size writes at all. I naively assumed that every I/O operation to RBD always
>> implies full object writes, even just changing a single byte (thinking of an
>> object as the equivalent of a sector on a disk, the smallest atomic unit).
>> If this is not the case, what is the meaning of object size then? How does
>> it influence on I/O patterns? My benchmarks show that object size matters a
>> lot, but it becomes a bit unclear now why.
> Not sure I can provide good enough answer on the above. But I doubt that
> RBD unconditionally operates on full objects.
>
>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> =================
>> Frank Schilder
>> AIT Risø Campus
>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
>> Sent: 29 July 2020 16:25:36
>> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> so you have pretty high amount of small writes indeed. More than a half
>> of the written volume (in bytes) is done via small writes.
>>
>> And 6x times more small requests.
>>
>>
>> This looks pretty odd for sequential write pattern and is likely to be
>> the root cause for that space overhead.
>>
>> I can see approx 1.4GB additionally lost per each of these 3 OSDs since
>> perf dump reset ( = allocated_new - stored_new - (allocated_old -
>> stored_old))
>>
>> Below are some speculations on what might be happening by for sure I
>> could be wrong/missing something. So please do not consider this as a
>> 100% valid analysis.
>>
>> Client does writes in 1MB chunks. This is split into 6 EC chunks (+2
>> added) which results in approx 170K writing block to object store ( =
>> 1MB / 6). Which corresponds to 1x128K big write and 1x42K small tailing
>> one. Resulting in 3x64K allocations.
>>
>> The next client adjacent write results in another 128K blob, one more
>> "small" tailing blob and heading blob which partially overlaps with the
>> previous tailing 42K chunk. Overlapped chunks are expected to be merged.
>> But presumably this doesn't happen due to that "partial EC overwrites"
>> issue. So instead additional 64K blob is allocated for overlapped range.
>>
>> I.e. 2x170K writes cause 2x128K blobs, 1x64K tailing blob and 2x64K
>> blobs for the range where two writes adjoined. 64K wasted!
>>
>> And similarly +64K space overhead per each additional append to this object.
>>
>>
>> Again I'm not completely sure the above analysis is 100% valid and this
>> doesn't explain that large amount of small requests. But you might want
>> to check/tune/experiment on client writing size. E.g. increase it to 4M
>> if it' less or make divisible by 6.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Igor
>>
>> On 7/29/2020 4:06 PM, Frank Schilder wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> thanks! Here a sample extract for one OSD, time stamp (+%F-%H%M%S) in file
>>> name. For the second collection I let it run for about 10 minutes after
>>> reset:
>>>
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_big": 10216689,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_big_bytes":
>>> 992602882048,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_big_blobs":
>>> 10758603,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_small":
>>> 63863813,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_bytes":
>>> 1481631167388,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_unused":
>>> 17279108,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_write_small_deferred": 13629951,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_write_small_pre_read": 13629951,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_new":
>>> 32954754,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "compress_success_count":
>>> 1167212,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "compress_rejected_count":
>>> 1493508,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_compressed":
>>> 149993487447,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_compressed_allocated": 206610432000,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_compressed_original":
>>> 362672914432,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-142739.osd181: "bluestore_extent_compress":
>>> 24431903,
>>>
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_big": 10736,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_big_bytes":
>>> 1363214336,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_big_blobs":
>>> 12291,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_small": 67527,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_bytes":
>>> 1591140352,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_unused":
>>> 17528,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_write_small_deferred": 13854,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_write_small_pre_read": 13854,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_write_small_new":
>>> 36145,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "compress_success_count": 1641,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "compress_rejected_count": 2341,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_compressed":
>>> 150044304023,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181:
>>> "bluestore_compressed_allocated": 206654210048,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_compressed_original":
>>> 362729676800,
>>> perf_dump_2020-07-29-143836.osd181: "bluestore_extent_compress":
>>> 24979,
>>>
>>> If necessary, the full outputs for 3 OSDs can be found here:
>>>
>>> Before reset:
>>>
>>> https://pastebin.com/zNgRwuNv
>>> https://pastebin.com/NDzdbhWc
>>> https://pastebin.com/mpra6PAS
>>>
>>> After reset:
>>>
>>> https://pastebin.com/Ywrwscea
>>> https://pastebin.com/sLjxK1Jw
>>> https://pastebin.com/ik3n7Xtz
>>>
>>> I do see an unreasonable number of small (re-)writes with average size of
>>> ca. 20K, seems not to be due to compression. Unfortunately, I can't see
>>> anything about alignment of writes.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> =================
>>> Frank Schilder
>>> AIT Risø Campus
>>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
>>> Sent: 29 July 2020 14:04:34
>>> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
>>>
>>> Hi Frank,
>>>
>>> you might want to proceed with perf counters' dump analysis in the
>>> following way:
>>>
>>> For 2-3 arbitrary osds
>>>
>>> - save current perf counter dump
>>>
>>> - reset perf counters
>>>
>>> - leave OSD under the regular load for a while.
>>>
>>> - dump perf counters again
>>>
>>> - share both saved and new dumps and/or check stats on 'big' writes vs.
>>> 'small' ones.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> On 7/29/2020 2:49 PM, Frank Schilder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Igor,
>>>>
>>>> please find below data from "ceph osd df tree" and per-OSD bluestore stats
>>>> pasted together with the script for extraction for reference. We have now:
>>>>
>>>> df USED: 142 TB
>>>> bluestore_stored: 190.9TB (142*8/6 = 189, so matches)
>>>> bluestore_allocated: 275.2TB
>>>> osd df tree USE: 276.1 (so matches with bluestore_allocated as well)
>>>>
>>>> The situation has gotten worse, the mismatch of raw used to stored is now
>>>> 85TB. Compression is almost irrelevant. This matches with my earlier
>>>> report with data taken from "ceph osd df tree" alone. Compared with my
>>>> previous report, what I seem to see is that a sequential write of 22TB
>>>> (user data) causes an excess of 16TB (raw). This does not make sense and
>>>> is not explained with the partial overwrite amplification you referred me
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> The real question I still have is how can I find out how much of the
>>>> excess usage is attributed to the issue you pointed me to, and how much
>>>> might be due to something else. I would probably need a way to find
>>>> objects that are affected by partial overwrite amplification and account
>>>> for their total to see how much of the excess they explain. Ideally
>>>> allowing me to identify the RBD images responsible.
>>>>
>>>> I do *not* believe that *all* this extra usage is due to the partial
>>>> overwrite amplification. We do not have the use case simulated with the
>>>> subsequent dd commands in your post
>>>> https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/d...@ceph.io/thread/OHPO43J54TPBEUISYCK3SRV55SIZX2AT/,
>>>> overwriting old data with an offset. On these images, we store very large
>>>> files (15GB) that are written *only* *once* and not modified again. We
>>>> currently do nothing else but sequential writes to a file system.
>>>>
>>>> The only objects that might see a partial overwrite could be at the tail
>>>> of such a file, when the beginning of a new file is written to an object
>>>> that already holds a tail, and potentially objects holding file system
>>>> meta data. With an RBD object size of 4M, this amounts to a comparably
>>>> small number of objects that almost certainly cannot explain the observed
>>>> 44% excess even assuming worst case amplification.
>>>>
>>>> The data:
>>>>
>>>> NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL OBJECTS
>>>> sr-rbd-data-one-hdd 11 142 TiB 71.12 58 TiB
>>>> 37415413
>>>>
>>>> osd df tree blue stats
>>>> ID SIZE USE alloc store
>>>> 84 8.9 6.2 6.1 4.3
>>>> 145 8.9 5.6 5.5 3.7
>>>> 156 8.9 6.3 6.2 4.2
>>>> 168 8.9 6.1 6.0 4.1
>>>> 181 8.9 6.6 6.6 4.4
>>>> 74 8.9 5.2 5.2 3.7
>>>> 144 8.9 5.9 5.9 4.0
>>>> 157 8.9 6.6 6.5 4.5
>>>> 169 8.9 6.4 6.3 4.4
>>>> 180 8.9 6.6 6.6 4.5
>>>> 60 8.9 5.7 5.6 4.0
>>>> 146 8.9 5.9 5.8 4.0
>>>> 158 8.9 6.7 6.7 4.6
>>>> 170 8.9 6.5 6.5 4.4
>>>> 182 8.9 5.8 5.7 4.0
>>>> 63 8.9 5.8 5.8 4.1
>>>> 148 8.9 6.5 6.4 4.4
>>>> 159 8.9 4.9 4.9 3.3
>>>> 172 8.9 6.4 6.3 4.4
>>>> 183 8.9 6.5 6.4 4.4
>>>> 229 8.9 5.6 5.6 3.8
>>>> 232 8.9 6.3 6.2 4.3
>>>> 235 8.9 5.0 4.9 3.3
>>>> 238 8.9 6.6 6.5 4.4
>>>> 259 11 7.5 7.4 5.1
>>>> 231 8.9 6.2 6.1 4.2
>>>> 233 8.9 6.7 6.6 4.5
>>>> 236 8.9 6.3 6.2 4.2
>>>> 239 8.9 5.2 5.1 3.5
>>>> 263 11 6.5 6.5 4.4
>>>> 228 8.9 6.3 6.3 4.3
>>>> 230 8.9 6.0 5.9 4.0
>>>> 234 8.9 6.5 6.4 4.4
>>>> 237 8.9 6.0 5.9 4.1
>>>> 260 11 6.6 6.5 4.5
>>>> 0 8.9 6.3 6.3 4.3
>>>> 2 8.9 6.4 6.4 4.5
>>>> 72 8.9 5.4 5.4 3.7
>>>> 76 8.9 6.2 6.1 4.3
>>>> 86 8.9 5.6 5.5 3.9
>>>> 1 8.9 6.0 5.9 4.1
>>>> 3 8.9 5.7 5.7 4.0
>>>> 73 8.9 6.1 6.0 4.3
>>>> 85 8.9 6.8 6.7 4.6
>>>> 87 8.9 6.1 6.1 4.3
>>>> SUM 406.8 276.1 275.2 190.9
>>>>
>>>> The script:
>>>>
>>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>>
>>>> format_TB() {
>>>> tmp=$(($1/1024))
>>>> echo "${tmp}.$(( (10*($1-tmp*1024))/1024 ))"
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> blue_stats() {
>>>> al_tot=0
>>>> st_tot=0
>>>> printf "%12s\n" "blue stats"
>>>> printf "%5s %5s\n" "alloc" "store"
>>>> for o in "$@" ; do
>>>> host_ip="$(ceph osd find "$o" | jq -r '.ip' | cut -d ":"
>>>> -f1)"
>>>> bs_data="$(ssh "$host_ip" ceph daemon "osd.$o" perf dump
>>>> | jq '.bluestore')"
>>>> bs_alloc=$(( $(echo "$bs_data" | jq
>>>> '.bluestore_allocated') /1024/1024/1024 ))
>>>> al_tot=$(( $al_tot+$bs_alloc ))
>>>> bs_store=$(( $(echo "$bs_data" | jq '.bluestore_stored')
>>>> /1024/1024/1024 ))
>>>> st_tot=$(( $st_tot+$bs_store ))
>>>> printf "%5s %5s\n" "$(format_TB $bs_alloc)" "$(format_TB
>>>> $bs_store)"
>>>> done
>>>> printf "%5s %5s\n" "$(format_TB $al_tot)" "$(format_TB $st_tot)"
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> df_tree_data="$(ceph osd df tree | sed -e "s/ *$//g" | awk 'BEGIN
>>>> {printf("%18s\n", "osd df tree")} /root default/ {o=0} /datacenter
>>>> ServerRoom/ {o=1} (o==1 && $2=="hdd") {s+=$5;u+=$7;printf("%4s %5s
>>>> %5s\n", $1, $5, $7)} f==0 {printf("%4s %5s %5s\n", $1, $5, $6);f=1} END
>>>> {printf("%4s %5.1f %5.1f\n", "SUM", s, u)}')"
>>>>
>>>> OSDS=( $(echo "$df_tree_data" | tail -n +3 | awk '/SUM/ {next} {print
>>>> $1}') )
>>>>
>>>> bs_data="$(blue_stats "${OSDS[@]}")"
>>>>
>>>> paste -d " " <(echo "$df_tree_data") <(echo "$bs_data")
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> =================
>>>> Frank Schilder
>>>> AIT Risø Campus
>>>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
>>>> Sent: 27 July 2020 13:31
>>>> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
>>>>
>>>> Frank,
>>>>
>>>> suggest to start with perf counter analysis as per the second part of my
>>>> previous email...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Igor
>>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2020 2:30 PM, Frank Schilder wrote:
>>>>> Hi Igor,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for your answer. I was thinking about that, but as far as I
>>>>> understood, to hit this bug actually requires a partial rewrite to
>>>>> happen. However, these are disk images in storage servers with basically
>>>>> static files, many of which very large (15GB). Therefore, I believe, the
>>>>> vast majority of objects is written to only once and should not be
>>>>> affected by the amplification bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way to confirm/rule out that/check how much amplification
>>>>> is happening?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if I might be observing something else. Since "ceph osd df
>>>>> tree" does report the actual utilization and I have only one pool on
>>>>> these OSDs, there is no problem with accounting allocated storage to a
>>>>> pool. I know its all used by this one pool. I'm more wondering if its not
>>>>> the known amplification but something else (at least partly) that plays a
>>>>> role here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> =================
>>>>> Frank Schilder
>>>>> AIT Risø Campus
>>>>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Igor Fedotov <ifedo...@suse.de>
>>>>> Sent: 27 July 2020 12:54:02
>>>>> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] mimic: much more raw used than reported
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>
>>>>> you might be being hit by https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/44213
>>>>>
>>>>> In short the root causes are significant space overhead due to high
>>>>> bluestore allocation unit (64K) and EC overwrite design.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is fixed for upcoming Pacific release by using 4K alloc unit but it
>>>>> is unlikely to be backported to earlier releases due to its complexity.
>>>>> To say nothing about the need for OSD redeployment. Hence please expect
>>>>> no fix for mimic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And your raw usage reports might still be not that good since mimic
>>>>> lacks per-pool stats collection https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/19454.
>>>>> I.e. your actual raw space usage is higher than reported. To estimate
>>>>> proper raw usage one can use bluestore perf counters (namely
>>>>> bluestore_stored and bluestore_allocated). Summing bluestore_allocated
>>>>> over all involved OSDs will give actual RAW usage. Summing
>>>>> bluestore_stored will provide actual data volume after EC processing,
>>>>> i.e. presumably it should be around 158TiB.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/2020 8:43 PM, Frank Schilder wrote:
>>>>>> Dear fellow cephers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I observe a wired problem on our mimic-13.2.8 cluster. We have an EC RBD
>>>>>> pool backed by HDDs. These disks are not in any other pool. I noticed
>>>>>> that the total capacity (=USED+MAX AVAIL) reported by "ceph df detail"
>>>>>> has shrunk recently from 300TiB to 200TiB. Part but by no means all of
>>>>>> this can be explained by imbalance of the data distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I compare the output of "ceph df detail" and "ceph osd df tree", I
>>>>>> find 69TiB raw capacity used but not accounted for; see calculations
>>>>>> below. These 69TiB raw are equivalent to 20% usable capacity and I
>>>>>> really need it back. Together with the imbalance, we loose about 30%
>>>>>> capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is using these extra 69TiB and how can I get it back?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some findings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are the 5 largest images in the pool, accounting for a total of
>>>>>> 97TiB out of 119TiB usage:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # rbd du :
>>>>>> NAME PROVISIONED USED
>>>>>> one-133 25 TiB 14 TiB
>>>>>> NAME PROVISIONED USED
>>>>>> one-153@222 40 TiB 14 TiB
>>>>>> one-153@228 40 TiB 357 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@235 40 TiB 797 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@241 40 TiB 509 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@242 40 TiB 43 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@243 40 TiB 16 MiB
>>>>>> one-153@244 40 TiB 16 MiB
>>>>>> one-153@245 40 TiB 324 MiB
>>>>>> one-153@246 40 TiB 276 MiB
>>>>>> one-153@247 40 TiB 96 MiB
>>>>>> one-153@248 40 TiB 138 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@249 40 TiB 1.8 GiB
>>>>>> one-153@250 40 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-153 40 TiB 204 MiB
>>>>>> <TOTAL> 40 TiB 16 TiB
>>>>>> NAME PROVISIONED USED
>>>>>> one-391@3 40 TiB 432 MiB
>>>>>> one-391@9 40 TiB 26 GiB
>>>>>> one-391@15 40 TiB 90 GiB
>>>>>> one-391@16 40 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-391@17 40 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-391@18 40 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-391@19 40 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-391@20 40 TiB 3.5 TiB
>>>>>> one-391@21 40 TiB 5.4 TiB
>>>>>> one-391@22 40 TiB 5.8 TiB
>>>>>> one-391@23 40 TiB 8.4 TiB
>>>>>> one-391@24 40 TiB 1.4 TiB
>>>>>> one-391 40 TiB 2.2 TiB
>>>>>> <TOTAL> 40 TiB 27 TiB
>>>>>> NAME PROVISIONED USED
>>>>>> one-394@3 70 TiB 1.4 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@9 70 TiB 2.5 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@15 70 TiB 20 GiB
>>>>>> one-394@16 70 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-394@17 70 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-394@18 70 TiB 0 B
>>>>>> one-394@19 70 TiB 383 GiB
>>>>>> one-394@20 70 TiB 3.3 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@21 70 TiB 5.0 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@22 70 TiB 5.0 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@23 70 TiB 9.0 TiB
>>>>>> one-394@24 70 TiB 1.6 TiB
>>>>>> one-394 70 TiB 2.5 TiB
>>>>>> <TOTAL> 70 TiB 31 TiB
>>>>>> NAME PROVISIONED USED
>>>>>> one-434 25 TiB 9.1 TiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The large 70TiB images one-391 and one-394 are currently copied to with
>>>>>> ca. 5TiB per day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Output of "ceph df detail" with some columns removed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL
>>>>>> OBJECTS RAW USED
>>>>>> sr-rbd-data-one-hdd 11 119 TiB 58.45 84 TiB
>>>>>> 31286554 158 TiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pool is EC 6+2.
>>>>>> USED is correct: 31286554*4MiB=119TiB.
>>>>>> RAW USED is correct: 119*8/6=158TiB.
>>>>>> Most of this data is freshly copied onto large RBD images.
>>>>>> Compression is enabled on this pool (aggressive,snappy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, when looking at "deph osd df tree", I get
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The combined raw capacity of OSDs backing this pool is 406.8TiB (sum
>>>>>> over SIZE).
>>>>>> Summing up column USE over all OSDs gives 227.5TiB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This gives a difference of 69TiB (=227-158) that is not accounted for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the output of "ceph osd df tree limited" to the drives backing the
>>>>>> pool:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE USE DATA OMAP META
>>>>>> AVAIL %USE VAR PGS TYPE NAME
>>>>>> 84 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.0 TiB 5.0 TiB 180 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.9 TiB 56.43 1.72 103 osd.84
>>>>>> 145 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.6 TiB 4.6 TiB 144 MiB
>>>>>> 14 GiB 4.3 TiB 51.37 1.57 87 osd.145
>>>>>> 156 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.2 TiB 5.1 TiB 173 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 57.91 1.77 100 osd.156
>>>>>> 168 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.0 TiB 5.0 TiB 164 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.9 TiB 56.31 1.72 98 osd.168
>>>>>> 181 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.5 TiB 5.4 TiB 121 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 3.5 TiB 61.26 1.87 105 osd.181
>>>>>> 74 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.2 TiB 4.2 TiB 148 MiB
>>>>>> 13 GiB 4.7 TiB 46.79 1.43 85 osd.74
>>>>>> 144 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.7 TiB 4.7 TiB 106 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.2 TiB 53.17 1.62 94 osd.144
>>>>>> 157 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.8 TiB 5.8 TiB 192 MiB
>>>>>> 18 GiB 3.1 TiB 65.02 1.99 111 osd.157
>>>>>> 169 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 172 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 56.99 1.74 102 osd.169
>>>>>> 180 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.8 TiB 5.8 TiB 131 MiB
>>>>>> 18 GiB 3.1 TiB 65.04 1.99 111 osd.180
>>>>>> 60 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.5 TiB 4.5 TiB 155 MiB
>>>>>> 14 GiB 4.4 TiB 50.40 1.54 93 osd.60
>>>>>> 146 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.8 TiB 4.8 TiB 139 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.1 TiB 53.70 1.64 92 osd.146
>>>>>> 158 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.6 TiB 5.5 TiB 183 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 3.4 TiB 62.30 1.90 109 osd.158
>>>>>> 170 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.7 TiB 5.6 TiB 205 MiB
>>>>>> 18 GiB 3.2 TiB 63.53 1.94 112 osd.170
>>>>>> 182 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.7 TiB 4.6 TiB 105 MiB
>>>>>> 14 GiB 4.3 TiB 52.27 1.60 92 osd.182
>>>>>> 63 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.7 TiB 4.7 TiB 156 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.2 TiB 52.74 1.61 98 osd.63
>>>>>> 148 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.2 TiB 5.1 TiB 119 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 57.82 1.77 100 osd.148
>>>>>> 159 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.0 TiB 4.0 TiB 89 MiB
>>>>>> 12 GiB 4.9 TiB 44.61 1.36 79 osd.159
>>>>>> 172 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 173 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 57.22 1.75 98 osd.172
>>>>>> 183 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 6.0 TiB 6.0 TiB 135 MiB
>>>>>> 19 GiB 2.9 TiB 67.35 2.06 118 osd.183
>>>>>> 229 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.6 TiB 4.6 TiB 127 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.3 TiB 52.05 1.59 93 osd.229
>>>>>> 232 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.2 TiB 5.2 TiB 158 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 3.7 TiB 58.22 1.78 101 osd.232
>>>>>> 235 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.1 TiB 4.1 TiB 103 MiB
>>>>>> 13 GiB 4.8 TiB 45.96 1.40 79 osd.235
>>>>>> 238 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.4 TiB 5.4 TiB 120 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 3.5 TiB 60.47 1.85 104 osd.238
>>>>>> 259 hdd 10.91399 1.00000 11 TiB 6.2 TiB 6.2 TiB 140 MiB
>>>>>> 19 GiB 4.7 TiB 56.54 1.73 120 osd.259
>>>>>> 231 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 114 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 56.90 1.74 101 osd.231
>>>>>> 233 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.5 TiB 5.5 TiB 123 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 3.4 TiB 61.78 1.89 106 osd.233
>>>>>> 236 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 114 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 57.53 1.76 101 osd.236
>>>>>> 239 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.2 TiB 4.2 TiB 95 MiB
>>>>>> 13 GiB 4.7 TiB 47.41 1.45 86 osd.239
>>>>>> 263 hdd 10.91399 1.00000 11 TiB 5.3 TiB 5.3 TiB 178 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 5.6 TiB 48.73 1.49 102 osd.263
>>>>>> 228 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 113 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 57.10 1.74 96 osd.228
>>>>>> 230 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.9 TiB 4.9 TiB 144 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 4.0 TiB 55.20 1.69 99 osd.230
>>>>>> 234 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.6 TiB 5.6 TiB 164 MiB
>>>>>> 18 GiB 3.3 TiB 63.29 1.93 109 osd.234
>>>>>> 237 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.8 TiB 4.8 TiB 110 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.1 TiB 54.33 1.66 97 osd.237
>>>>>> 260 hdd 10.91399 1.00000 11 TiB 5.4 TiB 5.4 TiB 152 MiB
>>>>>> 17 GiB 5.5 TiB 49.35 1.51 104 osd.260
>>>>>> 0 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.2 TiB 5.2 TiB 157 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.7 TiB 58.28 1.78 102 osd.0
>>>>>> 2 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.3 TiB 5.2 TiB 122 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.6 TiB 59.05 1.80 106 osd.2
>>>>>> 72 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.4 TiB 4.4 TiB 145 MiB
>>>>>> 14 GiB 4.5 TiB 49.89 1.52 89 osd.72
>>>>>> 76 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.1 TiB 5.1 TiB 178 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.8 TiB 56.89 1.74 102 osd.76
>>>>>> 86 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.6 TiB 4.5 TiB 155 MiB
>>>>>> 14 GiB 4.3 TiB 51.18 1.56 94 osd.86
>>>>>> 1 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.9 TiB 4.9 TiB 141 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.0 TiB 54.73 1.67 95 osd.1
>>>>>> 3 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 4.7 TiB 4.7 TiB 156 MiB
>>>>>> 15 GiB 4.2 TiB 52.40 1.60 94 osd.3
>>>>>> 73 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.0 TiB 4.9 TiB 146 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.9 TiB 55.68 1.70 102 osd.73
>>>>>> 85 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.6 TiB 5.5 TiB 192 MiB
>>>>>> 18 GiB 3.3 TiB 62.46 1.91 109 osd.85
>>>>>> 87 hdd 8.90999 1.00000 8.9 TiB 5.0 TiB 5.0 TiB 189 MiB
>>>>>> 16 GiB 3.9 TiB 55.91 1.71 102 osd.87
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> =================
>>>>>> Frank Schilder
>>>>>> AIT Risø Campus
>>>>>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
