Dave made a good point WAL + DB might end up a little over 60G, I would probably go with ~70Gig partitions /LV's per OSD in your case. (if the nvme drive is smart enough to spread the writes over all available capacity, mort recent nvme's are). I have not yet seen a WAL larger or even close to than a gigabyte.
We don't even think about EC-coded pools on clusters with less than 6 nodes (spindles, full SSD is another story). EC pools neer more processing resources We usually settle with 1 gig per TB of storage on replicated only sluters, but whet EC polls are involved, we add at least 50% to that. Also make sure your processors are up for it. Do not base your calculations on a healthy cluster -> build to fail. How long are you willing to be in a degraded state on node failure. Especially when using many larger spindles. recovery time might be way longer than you think. 12 * 12TB is 144TB storage, on a 4+2 EC pool you might end up with over 200 TB of traffic, on a 10Gig network that's roughly 2 and a half days to recover. IF your processors are not bottleneck due to EC parity calculations and all capacity is available for recovery (which is usually not the case, there is still production traffic that will eat up resources). Op do 16 jan. 2020 om 21:30 schreef <dhils...@performair.com>: > Dave; > > I don't like reading inline responses, so... > > I have zero experience with EC pools, so I won't pretend to give advice in > that area. > > I would think that small NVMe for DB would be better than nothing, but I > don't know. > > Once I got the hang of building clusters, it was relatively easy to wipe a > cluster out and rebuild it. Perhaps you could take some time, and > benchmark different configurations? > > Thank you, > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > Director – Information Technology > Perform Air International Inc. > dhils...@performair.com > www.PerformAir.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hall [mailto:kdh...@binghamton.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:04 PM > To: Dominic Hilsbos; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > Subject: Re: [External Email] RE: [ceph-users] Beginner questions > > Dominic, > > We ended up with a 1.6TB PCIe NVMe in each node. For 8 drives this > worked out to a DB size of something like 163GB per OSD. Allowing for > expansion to 12 drives brings it down to 124GB. So maybe just put the > WALs on NVMe and leave the DBs on the platters? > > Understood that we will want to move to more nodes rather than more > drives per node, but our funding is grant and donation based, so we may > end up adding drives in the short term. The long term plan is to get to > separate MON/MGR/MDS nodes and 10s of OSD nodes. > > Due to our current low node count, we are considering erasure-coded PGs > rather than replicated in order to maximize usable space. Any > guidelines or suggestions on this? > > Also, sorry for not replying inline. I haven't done this much in a > while - I'll figure it out. > > Thanks. > > -Dave > > On 1/16/2020 2:48 PM, dhils...@performair.com wrote: > > Dave; > > > > I'd like to expand on this answer, briefly... > > > > The information in the docs is wrong. There have been many discussions > about changing it, but no good alternative has been suggested, thus it > hasn't been changed. > > > > The 3rd party project that Ceph's BlueStore uses for its database > (RocksDB), apparently only uses DB sizes of 3GB, 30GB, and 300GB. As Dave > mentions below, when RocksDB executes a compact operation, it creates a new > blob of the same target size, and writes the compacted data into it. This > doubles the necessary space. In addition, BlueStore places its Write Ahead > Log (WAL) into the fastest storage that is available to OSD daemon, i.e. > NVMe if available. Since this is done before the first compaction is > requested, the WAL can force compaction onto slower storage. > > > > Thus, the numbers I've had floating around in my head for our next > cluster are: 7GB, 66GB, and 630GB. From all the discussion I've seen > around RocksDB, those seem like good, common sense targets. Pick the > largest one that works for your setup. > > > > All that said... You would really want to pair a 600GB+ NVMe with 12TB > drives, otherwise your DB is almost guaranteed to overflow onto the > spinning drive, and affect performance. > > > > I became aware of most of this after we planned our clusters, so I > haven't tried it, YMMV. > > > > One final note: more hosts, and more spindles usually translates into > better cluster-wide performance. I can't predict what the relatively low > client counts you're suggesting would impact that. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > > Director – Information Technology > > Perform Air International Inc. > > dhils...@performair.com > > www.PerformAir.com > > > > > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf > Of Bastiaan Visser > > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:55 AM > > To: Dave Hall > > Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Beginner questions > > > > I would definitely go for Nautilus. there are quite some > optimizations that went in after mimic. > > > > Bluestore DB size usually ends up at either 30 or 60 GB. > > 30 GB is one of the sweet spots during normal operation. But during > compaction, ceph writes the new data before removing the old, hence the > 60GB. > > Next sweetspot is 300/600GB. any size between 60 and 300 will never be > unused. > > > > DB Usage is also dependent on ceph usage, object storage is known to use > a lot more db space than rbd images for example. > > > > Op do 16 jan. 2020 om 17:46 schreef Dave Hall <kdh...@binghamton.edu>: > > Hello all. > > Sorry for the beginner questions... > > I am in the process of setting up a small (3 nodes, 288TB) Ceph cluster > to store some research data. It is expected that this cluster will grow > significantly in the next year, possibly to multiple petabytes and 10s of > nodes. At this time I'm expected a relatively small number of clients, > with only one or two actively writing collected data - albeit at a high > volume per day. > > Currently I'm deploying on Debian 9 via ceph-ansible. > > Before I put this cluster into production I have a couple questions > based on my experience to date: > > Luminous, Mimic, or Nautilus? I need stability for this deployment, so > I am sticking with Debian 9 since Debian 10 is fairly new, and I have been > hesitant to go with Nautilus. Yet Mimic seems to have had a hard road on > Debian but for the efforts at Croit. > > • Statements on the Releases page are now making more sense to me, but I > would like to confirm that Nautilus is the right choice at this time? > > Bluestore DB size: My nodes currently have 8 x 12TB drives (plus 4 > empty bays) and a PCIe NVMe drive. If I understand the suggested > calculation correctly, the DB size for a 12 TB Bluestore OSD would be > 480GB. If my NVMe isn't big enough to provide this size, should I skip > provisioning the DBs on the NVMe, or should I give each OSD 1/12th of what > I have available? Also, should I try to shift budget a bit to get more > NVMe as soon as I can, and redo the OSDs when sufficient NVMe is available? > > Thanks. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
