subject:"\[ceph\-users\] Re\: low available space due to unbalanced cluster\(\?\)"

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

2022-09-03 Thread Oebele Drijfhout

Hello Stefan,

Thank you for your answer.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:27 PM Stefan Kooman  wrote:

> On 9/2/22 15:55, Oebele Drijfhout wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm new to Ceph and I recently inherited a 4 node cluster with 32 OSDs
> and
> > about 116TB raw space, which shows low available space, which I'm trying
> to
> > increase by enabling the balancer and lowering priority for the most-used
> > OSDs. My questions are: is what I did correct with the current state of
> the
> > cluster and can I do more to speed up rebalancing and will we actually
> make
> > more space available this way?
>
> Yes. When it's perfectly balanced the average OSD utilization should
> approach %RAW USED.
>
>
The variance between OSD utilization has been going down during the night,
but I'm worried that we will soon hit 95% full on osd.11. %USE is steadily
going up. What can I do to 1. prevent more data being written to this OSD
and 2. force data off this OSD?

 [trui...@ceph02.eun ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster eun osd df
ID CLASS WEIGHT  REWEIGHT SIZERAW USE DATAOMAPMETAAVAIL
%USE  VAR  PGS STATUS
 0   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 907 MiB 3.3 GiB 2.2 TiB
39.56 0.67 127 up
 1   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.1 TiB 1.1 TiB 581 MiB 2.5 GiB 2.6 TiB
29.61 0.50 126 up
 2   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.2 TiB 701 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.56 1.01 125 up
 3   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 672 MiB 5.5 GiB 1.1 TiB
68.95 1.16 131 up
 4   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 524 MiB 5.7 GiB 1.1 TiB
68.88 1.16 116 up
 5   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 901 MiB 4.9 GiB 976 GiB
73.81 1.25 105 up
 6   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 473 MiB 5.0 GiB 972 GiB
73.90 1.25  99 up
 7   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 647 MiB 3.5 GiB 1.8 TiB
49.27 0.83 125 up
 8   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 624 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
44.21 0.75 124 up
 9   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.4 TiB 2.4 TiB 934 MiB 4.8 GiB 1.3 TiB
64.76 1.09 121 up
10   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 525 MiB 4.0 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.12 1.00 127 up
11   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 3.4 TiB 3.4 TiB 431 MiB 6.2 GiB 239 GiB
93.59 1.58  84 up <---
12   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 777 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.02 1.00 124 up
13   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 738 MiB 3.2 GiB 2.2 TiB
39.46 0.67 125 up
14   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 560 MiB 6.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.11 1.00 122 up
15   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 575 MiB 4.4 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.06 1.00 123 up
16   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 625 MiB 3.4 GiB 1.8 TiB
49.24 0.83 124 up
17   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 696 MiB 5.1 GiB 958 GiB
74.28 1.25  93 up
18   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 210 MiB 3.6 GiB 1.6 TiB
54.94 0.93 125 up
19   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 504 MiB 5.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.08 1.00 124 up
20   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 796 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
69.14 1.17 121 up
21   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 679 MiB 3.6 GiB 2.0 TiB
44.25 0.75 123 up
22   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 682 MiB 4.9 GiB 1.1 TiB
68.86 1.16 125 up
23   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 575 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
44.83 0.76 124 up
24   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 517 MiB 3.9 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.00 1.00 125 up
25   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 836 MiB 4.5 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.12 1.00 121 up
26   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 520 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
69.31 1.17 109 up
27   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 861 MiB 3.8 GiB 1.7 TiB
54.13 0.91 126 up
28   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 256 MiB 4.3 GiB 1.8 TiB
49.21 0.83 122 up
29   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 998 MiB 5.1 GiB 980 GiB
73.69 1.24 126 up
30   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 1.1 GiB 4.1 GiB 1.5 TiB
59.16 1.00 123 up
31   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.3 TiB 2.3 TiB 689 MiB 4.4 GiB 1.3 TiB
64.02 1.08 123 up
TOTAL 116 TiB  69 TiB  69 TiB  21 GiB 140 GiB  48 TiB
59.19
MIN/MAX VAR: 0.50/1.58  STDDEV: 12.44
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

2022-09-03 Thread ceph

Hi,

Is ceph still backfilling? What is the actual output of ceph -s?

If not backfilling, it is strange that you only have 84 pgs on osd.11 but 93.59 
percent in use...

Are you able to find a pg on 11 which is too big?
Perhaps pg query will help to find. Otherwise you should lower the weight of 
the osd...

I had a equal case where i "put" a really big file via rados and got a really 
big pg.

Hth
Mehmet

Am 3. September 2022 11:41:41 MESZ schrieb Oebele Drijfhout 
:
>Hello Stefan,
>
>Thank you for your answer.
>
>On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:27 PM Stefan Kooman  wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/22 15:55, Oebele Drijfhout wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm new to Ceph and I recently inherited a 4 node cluster with 32 OSDs
>> and
>> > about 116TB raw space, which shows low available space, which I'm trying
>> to
>> > increase by enabling the balancer and lowering priority for the most-used
>> > OSDs. My questions are: is what I did correct with the current state of
>> the
>> > cluster and can I do more to speed up rebalancing and will we actually
>> make
>> > more space available this way?
>>
>> Yes. When it's perfectly balanced the average OSD utilization should
>> approach %RAW USED.
>>
>>
>The variance between OSD utilization has been going down during the night,
>but I'm worried that we will soon hit 95% full on osd.11. %USE is steadily
>going up. What can I do to 1. prevent more data being written to this OSD
>and 2. force data off this OSD?
>
> [trui...@ceph02.eun ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster eun osd df
>ID CLASS WEIGHT  REWEIGHT SIZERAW USE DATAOMAPMETAAVAIL
>%USE  VAR  PGS STATUS
> 0   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 907 MiB 3.3 GiB 2.2 TiB
>39.56 0.67 127 up
> 1   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.1 TiB 1.1 TiB 581 MiB 2.5 GiB 2.6 TiB
>29.61 0.50 126 up
> 2   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.2 TiB 701 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.56 1.01 125 up
> 3   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 672 MiB 5.5 GiB 1.1 TiB
>68.95 1.16 131 up
> 4   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 524 MiB 5.7 GiB 1.1 TiB
>68.88 1.16 116 up
> 5   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 901 MiB 4.9 GiB 976 GiB
>73.81 1.25 105 up
> 6   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 473 MiB 5.0 GiB 972 GiB
>73.90 1.25  99 up
> 7   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 647 MiB 3.5 GiB 1.8 TiB
>49.27 0.83 125 up
> 8   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 624 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
>44.21 0.75 124 up
> 9   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.4 TiB 2.4 TiB 934 MiB 4.8 GiB 1.3 TiB
>64.76 1.09 121 up
>10   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 525 MiB 4.0 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.12 1.00 127 up
>11   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 3.4 TiB 3.4 TiB 431 MiB 6.2 GiB 239 GiB
>93.59 1.58  84 up <---
>12   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 777 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.02 1.00 124 up
>13   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 738 MiB 3.2 GiB 2.2 TiB
>39.46 0.67 125 up
>14   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 560 MiB 6.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.11 1.00 122 up
>15   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 575 MiB 4.4 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.06 1.00 123 up
>16   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 625 MiB 3.4 GiB 1.8 TiB
>49.24 0.83 124 up
>17   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 696 MiB 5.1 GiB 958 GiB
>74.28 1.25  93 up
>18   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 210 MiB 3.6 GiB 1.6 TiB
>54.94 0.93 125 up
>19   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 504 MiB 5.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.08 1.00 124 up
>20   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 796 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
>69.14 1.17 121 up
>21   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 679 MiB 3.6 GiB 2.0 TiB
>44.25 0.75 123 up
>22   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 682 MiB 4.9 GiB 1.1 TiB
>68.86 1.16 125 up
>23   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 575 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
>44.83 0.76 124 up
>24   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 517 MiB 3.9 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.00 1.00 125 up
>25   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 836 MiB 4.5 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.12 1.00 121 up
>26   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 520 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
>69.31 1.17 109 up
>27   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 861 MiB 3.8 GiB 1.7 TiB
>54.13 0.91 126 up
>28   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 256 MiB 4.3 GiB 1.8 TiB
>49.21 0.83 122 up
>29   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 998 MiB 5.1 GiB 980 GiB
>73.69 1.24 126 up
>30   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 1.1 GiB 4.1 GiB 1.5 TiB
>59.16 1.00 123 up
>31   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.3 TiB 2.3 TiB 689 MiB 4.4 GiB 1.3 TiB
>64.02 1.08 123 up
>TOTAL 116 TiB  69 TiB  69 TiB  21 GiB 140 GiB  48 TiB
>59.19
>MIN/MAX VAR: 0.50/1.58  STDDEV: 12.44
>___
>ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
>To unsubscribe send an email to c

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

2022-09-03 Thread Oebele Drijfhout

Hello Mehmet,

On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 1:50 PM  wrote:

> Is ceph still backfilling? What is the actual output of ceph -s?
>

Yes:

[trui...@ceph02.eun ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster xxx -s
  cluster:
id: 91ba1ea6-bfec-4ddb-a8b5-9faf842f22c3
health: HEALTH_WARN
1 backfillfull osd(s)
3 pool(s) backfillfull
Low space hindering backfill (add storage if this doesn't
resolve itself): 3 pgs backfill_toofull

  services:
mon: 5 daemons, quorum a,b,c,d,e (age 6d)
mgr: b(active, since 45h), standbys: a, c, d, e
mds: registration_docs:1 {0=b=up:active} 3 up:standby
osd: 32 osds: 32 up (since 19M), 32 in (since 3y); 12 remapped pgs
mds: 1 daemon active (b)

  data:
pools:   3 pools, 1280 pgs
objects: 14.32M objects, 23 TiB
usage:   69 TiB used, 47 TiB / 116 TiB avail
pgs: 543262/42962769 objects misplaced (1.264%)
 1268 active+clean
 9active+remapped+backfilling
 3active+remapped+backfill_toofull

  io:
client:   5.0 MiB/s rd, 296 KiB/s wr, 10 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
recovery: 73 MiB/s, 36 keys/s, 44 objects/s


>
> If not backfilling, it is strange that you only have 84 pgs on osd.11 but
> 93.59 percent in use...
>

This morning it wasn't backfilling, but after I did another `osd
reweight-by-utilization`, it started again.


>
> Are you able to find a pg on 11 which is too big?
> Perhaps pg query will help to find. Otherwise you should lower the weight
> of the osd...
>

It's a nautilus cluster, it looks like the pg query command doesn't exist
there. How would I find the large pg(s) on osd.11 and how could I force
them off the osd?
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

2022-09-03 Thread Oebele Drijfhout

I found something that I think could be interesting (please remember I'm
new to Ceph :)

There are 3 pools in the cluster:
[xxx@ceph02 ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster xxx osd pool ls
xxx-pool
foo_data
foo_metadata

xxx-pool is empty, contains no data, but has the bulk of the pgs:
[xxx@ceph02 ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster xxx osd pool get xxx-pool pg_num
pg_num: 1024

The other two pools which contain the bulk of the data, have the default
number of PGs:
[xxx@ceph02 ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster xxx osd pool get foo_metadata pg_num
pg_num: 128
[xxx@ceph02 ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster xxx osd pool get foo_data pg_num
pg_num: 128

According to the manual
,
with 10-50 OSDs, pg_num and pgp_num should be set to 1024 and it's best to
increase in steps 128 -> 256 -> 512 -> 1024.

- Is this change likely to solve the issue with the stuck PGs and
over-utilized OSD?
- What should we expect w.r.t. load on the cluster?
- Do the 1024 PGs in xxx-pool have any influence given they are empty?

On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 11:41 AM Oebele Drijfhout 
wrote:

> Hello Stefan,
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:27 PM Stefan Kooman  wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/22 15:55, Oebele Drijfhout wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm new to Ceph and I recently inherited a 4 node cluster with 32 OSDs
>> and
>> > about 116TB raw space, which shows low available space, which I'm
>> trying to
>> > increase by enabling the balancer and lowering priority for the
>> most-used
>> > OSDs. My questions are: is what I did correct with the current state of
>> the
>> > cluster and can I do more to speed up rebalancing and will we actually
>> make
>> > more space available this way?
>>
>> Yes. When it's perfectly balanced the average OSD utilization should
>> approach %RAW USED.
>>
>>
> The variance between OSD utilization has been going down during the night,
> but I'm worried that we will soon hit 95% full on osd.11. %USE is steadily
> going up. What can I do to 1. prevent more data being written to this OSD
> and 2. force data off this OSD?
>
>  [trui...@ceph02.eun ~]$ sudo ceph --cluster eun osd df
> ID CLASS WEIGHT  REWEIGHT SIZERAW USE DATAOMAPMETAAVAIL
> %USE  VAR  PGS STATUS
>  0   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 907 MiB 3.3 GiB 2.2 TiB
> 39.56 0.67 127 up
>  1   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.1 TiB 1.1 TiB 581 MiB 2.5 GiB 2.6 TiB
> 29.61 0.50 126 up
>  2   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.2 TiB 701 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.56 1.01 125 up
>  3   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 672 MiB 5.5 GiB 1.1 TiB
> 68.95 1.16 131 up
>  4   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 524 MiB 5.7 GiB 1.1 TiB
> 68.88 1.16 116 up
>  5   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 901 MiB 4.9 GiB 976 GiB
> 73.81 1.25 105 up
>  6   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 473 MiB 5.0 GiB 972 GiB
> 73.90 1.25  99 up
>  7   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 647 MiB 3.5 GiB 1.8 TiB
> 49.27 0.83 125 up
>  8   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 624 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
> 44.21 0.75 124 up
>  9   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.4 TiB 2.4 TiB 934 MiB 4.8 GiB 1.3 TiB
> 64.76 1.09 121 up
> 10   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 525 MiB 4.0 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.12 1.00 127 up
> 11   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 3.4 TiB 3.4 TiB 431 MiB 6.2 GiB 239 GiB
> 93.59 1.58  84 up <---
> 12   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 777 MiB 4.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.02 1.00 124 up
> 13   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.4 TiB 1.4 TiB 738 MiB 3.2 GiB 2.2 TiB
> 39.46 0.67 125 up
> 14   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 560 MiB 6.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.11 1.00 122 up
> 15   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 575 MiB 4.4 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.06 1.00 123 up
> 16   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.8 TiB 1.8 TiB 625 MiB 3.4 GiB 1.8 TiB
> 49.24 0.83 124 up
> 17   hdd 3.63869  0.76984 3.6 TiB 2.7 TiB 2.7 TiB 696 MiB 5.1 GiB 958 GiB
> 74.28 1.25  93 up
> 18   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 210 MiB 3.6 GiB 1.6 TiB
> 54.94 0.93 125 up
> 19   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 504 MiB 5.2 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.08 1.00 124 up
> 20   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 796 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
> 69.14 1.17 121 up
> 21   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 679 MiB 3.6 GiB 2.0 TiB
> 44.25 0.75 123 up
> 22   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 682 MiB 4.9 GiB 1.1 TiB
> 68.86 1.16 125 up
> 23   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 1.6 TiB 575 MiB 3.1 GiB 2.0 TiB
> 44.83 0.76 124 up
> 24   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.1 TiB 2.1 TiB 517 MiB 3.9 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.00 1.00 125 up
> 25   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.2 TiB 2.1 TiB 836 MiB 4.5 GiB 1.5 TiB
> 59.12 1.00 121 up
> 26   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.5 TiB 2.5 TiB 520 MiB 5.0 GiB 1.1 TiB
> 69.31 1.17 109 up
> 27   hdd 3.63869  1.0 3.6 TiB 2.0 TiB 2.0 TiB 8

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

[ceph-users] Re: low available space due to unbalanced cluster(?)

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information