Re: [ceph-users] Better way to use osd's of different size

2015-01-16 Thread Udo Lembke
Hi Megov,
you should weight the OSD so it's represent the size (like an weight of
3.68 for an 4TB HDD).
cephdeploy do this automaticly.

Nevertheless also with the correct weight the disk was not filled in
equal distribution. For that purposes you can use reweight for single
OSDs, or automaticly with ceph osd reweight-by-utilization.

Udo

On 14.01.2015 16:36, Межов Игорь Александрович wrote:

 Hi!


 We have a small production ceph cluster, based on firefly release.


 It was built using hardware we already have in our site so it is not
 new  shiny,

 but works quite good. It was started in 2014.09 as a proof of
 concept from 4 hosts

 with 3 x 1tb osd's each: 1U dual socket Intel 54XX  55XX platforms on
 1 gbit network.


 Now it contains 4x12 osd nodes on shared 10Gbit network. We use it as
 a backstore

 for running VMs under qemu+rbd.


 During migration we temporarily use 1U nodes with 2tb osds and already
 face some

 problems with uneven distribution. I know, that the best practice is
 to use osds of same

 capacity, but it is impossible sometimes.


 Now we have 24-28 spare 2tb drives and want to increase capacity on
 the same boxes.

 What is the more right way to do it:

 - replace 12x1tb drives with 12x2tb drives, so we will have 2 nodes
 full of 2tb drives and

 other nodes remains in 12x1tb confifg

 - or replace 1tb to 2tb drives in more unify way, so every node will
 have 6x1tb + 6x2tb drives?


 I feel that the second way will give more smooth distribution among
 the nodes, and

 outage of one node may give lesser impact on cluster. Am I right and
 what you can

 advice me in such a situation?




 Megov Igor
 yuterra.ru, CIO
 me...@yuterra.ru


 ___
 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


Re: [ceph-users] Better way to use osd's of different size

2015-01-16 Thread John Spray
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Межов Игорь Александрович
me...@yuterra.ru wrote:
 What is the more right way to do it:

 - replace 12x1tb drives with 12x2tb drives, so we will have 2 nodes full of
 2tb drives and

 other nodes remains in 12x1tb confifg

 - or replace 1tb to 2tb drives in more unify way, so every node will have
 6x1tb + 6x2tb drives?


 I feel that the second way will give more smooth distribution among the
 nodes, and

 outage of one node may give lesser impact on cluster. Am I right and what
 you can

 advice me in such a situation?

You are correct.  The CRUSH weight assigned to an OSD depends on its
capacity, so in order to fill a cluster evenly we have to write 2x as
quickly to a 2TB OSD than a 1TB OSD.  If some nodes had all the big
drives, then the network interfaces to those nodes would be overloaded
compared with the network interfaces to the other nodes.

However, even if the drives are spread out across nodes such that
there is no network imbalance, you will still have the local imbalance
within a node: if you are writing (across many PGs) 100MB/s to the 2TB
drives then you will only be writing 50MB/s to the 1TB drives.  You
could solve this in turn with some creative arrangement of pools with
crush rules to make sure that each pool was only using a single drive
size: that way you could have two pools that each got full bandwidth,
but one pool would be smaller than the other.  But if you don't care
about the bandwidth under-utilization on the older drives, then that
would be unnecessary complication.

John
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com


[ceph-users] Better way to use osd's of different size

2015-01-14 Thread Межов Игорь Александрович
Hi!


We have a small production ceph cluster, based on firefly release.


It was built using hardware we already have in our site so it is not new  
shiny,

but works quite good. It was started in 2014.09 as a proof of concept from 4 
hosts

with 3 x 1tb osd's each: 1U dual socket Intel 54XX  55XX platforms on 1 gbit 
network.


Now it contains 4x12 osd nodes on shared 10Gbit network. We use it as a 
backstore

for running VMs under qemu+rbd.


During migration we temporarily use 1U nodes with 2tb osds and already face some

problems with uneven distribution. I know, that the best practice is to use 
osds of same

capacity, but it is impossible sometimes.


Now we have 24-28 spare 2tb drives and want to increase capacity on the same 
boxes.

What is the more right way to do it:

- replace 12x1tb drives with 12x2tb drives, so we will have 2 nodes full of 2tb 
drives and

other nodes remains in 12x1tb confifg

- or replace 1tb to 2tb drives in more unify way, so every node will have 6x1tb 
+ 6x2tb drives?


I feel that the second way will give more smooth distribution among the nodes, 
and

outage of one node may give lesser impact on cluster. Am I right and what you 
can

advice me in such a situation?




Megov Igor
yuterra.ru, CIO
me...@yuterra.ru
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com