mirror of
https://github.com/ceph/ceph
synced 2024-12-28 22:43:29 +00:00
791b00daa1
I ran a lot of the docs through aspell and found a number of spelling problems. Signed-off-by: Bryan Stillwell <bstillwell@godaddy.com>
667 lines
23 KiB
ReStructuredText
667 lines
23 KiB
ReStructuredText
=====================
|
|
Troubleshooting PGs
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
Placement Groups Never Get Clean
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
When you create a cluster and your cluster remains in ``active``,
|
|
``active+remapped`` or ``active+degraded`` status and never achieve an
|
|
``active+clean`` status, you likely have a problem with your configuration.
|
|
|
|
You may need to review settings in the `Pool, PG and CRUSH Config Reference`_
|
|
and make appropriate adjustments.
|
|
|
|
As a general rule, you should run your cluster with more than one OSD and a
|
|
pool size greater than 1 object replica.
|
|
|
|
One Node Cluster
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Ceph no longer provides documentation for operating on a single node, because
|
|
you would never deploy a system designed for distributed computing on a single
|
|
node. Additionally, mounting client kernel modules on a single node containing a
|
|
Ceph daemon may cause a deadlock due to issues with the Linux kernel itself
|
|
(unless you use VMs for the clients). You can experiment with Ceph in a 1-node
|
|
configuration, in spite of the limitations as described herein.
|
|
|
|
If you are trying to create a cluster on a single node, you must change the
|
|
default of the ``osd crush chooseleaf type`` setting from ``1`` (meaning
|
|
``host`` or ``node``) to ``0`` (meaning ``osd``) in your Ceph configuration
|
|
file before you create your monitors and OSDs. This tells Ceph that an OSD
|
|
can peer with another OSD on the same host. If you are trying to set up a
|
|
1-node cluster and ``osd crush chooseleaf type`` is greater than ``0``,
|
|
Ceph will try to peer the PGs of one OSD with the PGs of another OSD on
|
|
another node, chassis, rack, row, or even datacenter depending on the setting.
|
|
|
|
.. tip:: DO NOT mount kernel clients directly on the same node as your
|
|
Ceph Storage Cluster, because kernel conflicts can arise. However, you
|
|
can mount kernel clients within virtual machines (VMs) on a single node.
|
|
|
|
If you are creating OSDs using a single disk, you must create directories
|
|
for the data manually first. For example::
|
|
|
|
ceph-deploy osd create --data {disk} {host}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fewer OSDs than Replicas
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
If you have brought up two OSDs to an ``up`` and ``in`` state, but you still
|
|
don't see ``active + clean`` placement groups, you may have an
|
|
``osd pool default size`` set to greater than ``2``.
|
|
|
|
There are a few ways to address this situation. If you want to operate your
|
|
cluster in an ``active + degraded`` state with two replicas, you can set the
|
|
``osd pool default min size`` to ``2`` so that you can write objects in
|
|
an ``active + degraded`` state. You may also set the ``osd pool default size``
|
|
setting to ``2`` so that you only have two stored replicas (the original and
|
|
one replica), in which case the cluster should achieve an ``active + clean``
|
|
state.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: You can make the changes at runtime. If you make the changes in
|
|
your Ceph configuration file, you may need to restart your cluster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pool Size = 1
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
If you have the ``osd pool default size`` set to ``1``, you will only have
|
|
one copy of the object. OSDs rely on other OSDs to tell them which objects
|
|
they should have. If a first OSD has a copy of an object and there is no
|
|
second copy, then no second OSD can tell the first OSD that it should have
|
|
that copy. For each placement group mapped to the first OSD (see
|
|
``ceph pg dump``), you can force the first OSD to notice the placement groups
|
|
it needs by running::
|
|
|
|
ceph osd force-create-pg <pgid>
|
|
|
|
|
|
CRUSH Map Errors
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Another candidate for placement groups remaining unclean involves errors
|
|
in your CRUSH map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stuck Placement Groups
|
|
======================
|
|
|
|
It is normal for placement groups to enter states like "degraded" or "peering"
|
|
following a failure. Normally these states indicate the normal progression
|
|
through the failure recovery process. However, if a placement group stays in one
|
|
of these states for a long time this may be an indication of a larger problem.
|
|
For this reason, the monitor will warn when placement groups get "stuck" in a
|
|
non-optimal state. Specifically, we check for:
|
|
|
|
* ``inactive`` - The placement group has not been ``active`` for too long
|
|
(i.e., it hasn't been able to service read/write requests).
|
|
|
|
* ``unclean`` - The placement group has not been ``clean`` for too long
|
|
(i.e., it hasn't been able to completely recover from a previous failure).
|
|
|
|
* ``stale`` - The placement group status has not been updated by a ``ceph-osd``,
|
|
indicating that all nodes storing this placement group may be ``down``.
|
|
|
|
You can explicitly list stuck placement groups with one of::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg dump_stuck stale
|
|
ceph pg dump_stuck inactive
|
|
ceph pg dump_stuck unclean
|
|
|
|
For stuck ``stale`` placement groups, it is normally a matter of getting the
|
|
right ``ceph-osd`` daemons running again. For stuck ``inactive`` placement
|
|
groups, it is usually a peering problem (see :ref:`failures-osd-peering`). For
|
|
stuck ``unclean`` placement groups, there is usually something preventing
|
|
recovery from completing, like unfound objects (see
|
|
:ref:`failures-osd-unfound`);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _failures-osd-peering:
|
|
|
|
Placement Group Down - Peering Failure
|
|
======================================
|
|
|
|
In certain cases, the ``ceph-osd`` `Peering` process can run into
|
|
problems, preventing a PG from becoming active and usable. For
|
|
example, ``ceph health`` might report::
|
|
|
|
ceph health detail
|
|
HEALTH_ERR 7 pgs degraded; 12 pgs down; 12 pgs peering; 1 pgs recovering; 6 pgs stuck unclean; 114/3300 degraded (3.455%); 1/3 in osds are down
|
|
...
|
|
pg 0.5 is down+peering
|
|
pg 1.4 is down+peering
|
|
...
|
|
osd.1 is down since epoch 69, last address 192.168.106.220:6801/8651
|
|
|
|
We can query the cluster to determine exactly why the PG is marked ``down`` with::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg 0.5 query
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
{ "state": "down+peering",
|
|
...
|
|
"recovery_state": [
|
|
{ "name": "Started\/Primary\/Peering\/GetInfo",
|
|
"enter_time": "2012-03-06 14:40:16.169679",
|
|
"requested_info_from": []},
|
|
{ "name": "Started\/Primary\/Peering",
|
|
"enter_time": "2012-03-06 14:40:16.169659",
|
|
"probing_osds": [
|
|
0,
|
|
1],
|
|
"blocked": "peering is blocked due to down osds",
|
|
"down_osds_we_would_probe": [
|
|
1],
|
|
"peering_blocked_by": [
|
|
{ "osd": 1,
|
|
"current_lost_at": 0,
|
|
"comment": "starting or marking this osd lost may let us proceed"}]},
|
|
{ "name": "Started",
|
|
"enter_time": "2012-03-06 14:40:16.169513"}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
The ``recovery_state`` section tells us that peering is blocked due to
|
|
down ``ceph-osd`` daemons, specifically ``osd.1``. In this case, we can start that ``ceph-osd``
|
|
and things will recover.
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, if there is a catastrophic failure of ``osd.1`` (e.g., disk
|
|
failure), we can tell the cluster that it is ``lost`` and to cope as
|
|
best it can.
|
|
|
|
.. important:: This is dangerous in that the cluster cannot
|
|
guarantee that the other copies of the data are consistent
|
|
and up to date.
|
|
|
|
To instruct Ceph to continue anyway::
|
|
|
|
ceph osd lost 1
|
|
|
|
Recovery will proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _failures-osd-unfound:
|
|
|
|
Unfound Objects
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Under certain combinations of failures Ceph may complain about
|
|
``unfound`` objects::
|
|
|
|
ceph health detail
|
|
HEALTH_WARN 1 pgs degraded; 78/3778 unfound (2.065%)
|
|
pg 2.4 is active+degraded, 78 unfound
|
|
|
|
This means that the storage cluster knows that some objects (or newer
|
|
copies of existing objects) exist, but it hasn't found copies of them.
|
|
One example of how this might come about for a PG whose data is on ceph-osds
|
|
1 and 2:
|
|
|
|
* 1 goes down
|
|
* 2 handles some writes, alone
|
|
* 1 comes up
|
|
* 1 and 2 repeer, and the objects missing on 1 are queued for recovery.
|
|
* Before the new objects are copied, 2 goes down.
|
|
|
|
Now 1 knows that these object exist, but there is no live ``ceph-osd`` who
|
|
has a copy. In this case, IO to those objects will block, and the
|
|
cluster will hope that the failed node comes back soon; this is
|
|
assumed to be preferable to returning an IO error to the user.
|
|
|
|
First, you can identify which objects are unfound with::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg 2.4 list_missing [starting offset, in json]
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
{ "offset": { "oid": "",
|
|
"key": "",
|
|
"snapid": 0,
|
|
"hash": 0,
|
|
"max": 0},
|
|
"num_missing": 0,
|
|
"num_unfound": 0,
|
|
"objects": [
|
|
{ "oid": "object 1",
|
|
"key": "",
|
|
"hash": 0,
|
|
"max": 0 },
|
|
...
|
|
],
|
|
"more": 0}
|
|
|
|
If there are too many objects to list in a single result, the ``more``
|
|
field will be true and you can query for more. (Eventually the
|
|
command line tool will hide this from you, but not yet.)
|
|
|
|
Second, you can identify which OSDs have been probed or might contain
|
|
data::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg 2.4 query
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
"recovery_state": [
|
|
{ "name": "Started\/Primary\/Active",
|
|
"enter_time": "2012-03-06 15:15:46.713212",
|
|
"might_have_unfound": [
|
|
{ "osd": 1,
|
|
"status": "osd is down"}]},
|
|
|
|
In this case, for example, the cluster knows that ``osd.1`` might have
|
|
data, but it is ``down``. The full range of possible states include:
|
|
|
|
* already probed
|
|
* querying
|
|
* OSD is down
|
|
* not queried (yet)
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it simply takes some time for the cluster to query possible
|
|
locations.
|
|
|
|
It is possible that there are other locations where the object can
|
|
exist that are not listed. For example, if a ceph-osd is stopped and
|
|
taken out of the cluster, the cluster fully recovers, and due to some
|
|
future set of failures ends up with an unfound object, it won't
|
|
consider the long-departed ceph-osd as a potential location to
|
|
consider. (This scenario, however, is unlikely.)
|
|
|
|
If all possible locations have been queried and objects are still
|
|
lost, you may have to give up on the lost objects. This, again, is
|
|
possible given unusual combinations of failures that allow the cluster
|
|
to learn about writes that were performed before the writes themselves
|
|
are recovered. To mark the "unfound" objects as "lost"::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg 2.5 mark_unfound_lost revert|delete
|
|
|
|
This the final argument specifies how the cluster should deal with
|
|
lost objects.
|
|
|
|
The "delete" option will forget about them entirely.
|
|
|
|
The "revert" option (not available for erasure coded pools) will
|
|
either roll back to a previous version of the object or (if it was a
|
|
new object) forget about it entirely. Use this with caution, as it
|
|
may confuse applications that expected the object to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homeless Placement Groups
|
|
=========================
|
|
|
|
It is possible for all OSDs that had copies of a given placement groups to fail.
|
|
If that's the case, that subset of the object store is unavailable, and the
|
|
monitor will receive no status updates for those placement groups. To detect
|
|
this situation, the monitor marks any placement group whose primary OSD has
|
|
failed as ``stale``. For example::
|
|
|
|
ceph health
|
|
HEALTH_WARN 24 pgs stale; 3/300 in osds are down
|
|
|
|
You can identify which placement groups are ``stale``, and what the last OSDs to
|
|
store them were, with::
|
|
|
|
ceph health detail
|
|
HEALTH_WARN 24 pgs stale; 3/300 in osds are down
|
|
...
|
|
pg 2.5 is stuck stale+active+remapped, last acting [2,0]
|
|
...
|
|
osd.10 is down since epoch 23, last address 192.168.106.220:6800/11080
|
|
osd.11 is down since epoch 13, last address 192.168.106.220:6803/11539
|
|
osd.12 is down since epoch 24, last address 192.168.106.220:6806/11861
|
|
|
|
If we want to get placement group 2.5 back online, for example, this tells us that
|
|
it was last managed by ``osd.0`` and ``osd.2``. Restarting those ``ceph-osd``
|
|
daemons will allow the cluster to recover that placement group (and, presumably,
|
|
many others).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only a Few OSDs Receive Data
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
If you have many nodes in your cluster and only a few of them receive data,
|
|
`check`_ the number of placement groups in your pool. Since placement groups get
|
|
mapped to OSDs, a small number of placement groups will not distribute across
|
|
your cluster. Try creating a pool with a placement group count that is a
|
|
multiple of the number of OSDs. See `Placement Groups`_ for details. The default
|
|
placement group count for pools is not useful, but you can change it `here`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't Write Data
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
If your cluster is up, but some OSDs are down and you cannot write data,
|
|
check to ensure that you have the minimum number of OSDs running for the
|
|
placement group. If you don't have the minimum number of OSDs running,
|
|
Ceph will not allow you to write data because there is no guarantee
|
|
that Ceph can replicate your data. See ``osd pool default min size``
|
|
in the `Pool, PG and CRUSH Config Reference`_ for details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PGs Inconsistent
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
If you receive an ``active + clean + inconsistent`` state, this may happen
|
|
due to an error during scrubbing. As always, we can identify the inconsistent
|
|
placement group(s) with::
|
|
|
|
$ ceph health detail
|
|
HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 2 scrub errors
|
|
pg 0.6 is active+clean+inconsistent, acting [0,1,2]
|
|
2 scrub errors
|
|
|
|
Or if you prefer inspecting the output in a programmatic way::
|
|
|
|
$ rados list-inconsistent-pg rbd
|
|
["0.6"]
|
|
|
|
There is only one consistent state, but in the worst case, we could have
|
|
different inconsistencies in multiple perspectives found in more than one
|
|
objects. If an object named ``foo`` in PG ``0.6`` is truncated, we will have::
|
|
|
|
$ rados list-inconsistent-obj 0.6 --format=json-pretty
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
"epoch": 14,
|
|
"inconsistents": [
|
|
{
|
|
"object": {
|
|
"name": "foo",
|
|
"nspace": "",
|
|
"locator": "",
|
|
"snap": "head",
|
|
"version": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"errors": [
|
|
"data_digest_mismatch",
|
|
"size_mismatch"
|
|
],
|
|
"union_shard_errors": [
|
|
"data_digest_mismatch_info",
|
|
"size_mismatch_info"
|
|
],
|
|
"selected_object_info": "0:602f83fe:::foo:head(16'1 client.4110.0:1 dirty|data_digest|omap_digest s 968 uv 1 dd e978e67f od ffffffff alloc_hint [0 0 0])",
|
|
"shards": [
|
|
{
|
|
"osd": 0,
|
|
"errors": [],
|
|
"size": 968,
|
|
"omap_digest": "0xffffffff",
|
|
"data_digest": "0xe978e67f"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"osd": 1,
|
|
"errors": [],
|
|
"size": 968,
|
|
"omap_digest": "0xffffffff",
|
|
"data_digest": "0xe978e67f"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"osd": 2,
|
|
"errors": [
|
|
"data_digest_mismatch_info",
|
|
"size_mismatch_info"
|
|
],
|
|
"size": 0,
|
|
"omap_digest": "0xffffffff",
|
|
"data_digest": "0xffffffff"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
In this case, we can learn from the output:
|
|
|
|
* The only inconsistent object is named ``foo``, and it is its head that has
|
|
inconsistencies.
|
|
* The inconsistencies fall into two categories:
|
|
|
|
* ``errors``: these errors indicate inconsistencies between shards without a
|
|
determination of which shard(s) are bad. Check for the ``errors`` in the
|
|
`shards` array, if available, to pinpoint the problem.
|
|
|
|
* ``data_digest_mismatch``: the digest of the replica read from OSD.2 is
|
|
different from the ones of OSD.0 and OSD.1
|
|
* ``size_mismatch``: the size of the replica read from OSD.2 is 0, while
|
|
the size reported by OSD.0 and OSD.1 is 968.
|
|
* ``union_shard_errors``: the union of all shard specific ``errors`` in
|
|
``shards`` array. The ``errors`` are set for the given shard that has the
|
|
problem. They include errors like ``read_error``. The ``errors`` ending in
|
|
``oi`` indicate a comparison with ``selected_object_info``. Look at the
|
|
``shards`` array to determine which shard has which error(s).
|
|
|
|
* ``data_digest_mismatch_info``: the digest stored in the object-info is not
|
|
``0xffffffff``, which is calculated from the shard read from OSD.2
|
|
* ``size_mismatch_info``: the size stored in the object-info is different
|
|
from the one read from OSD.2. The latter is 0.
|
|
|
|
You can repair the inconsistent placement group by executing::
|
|
|
|
ceph pg repair {placement-group-ID}
|
|
|
|
Which overwrites the `bad` copies with the `authoritative` ones. In most cases,
|
|
Ceph is able to choose authoritative copies from all available replicas using
|
|
some predefined criteria. But this does not always work. For example, the stored
|
|
data digest could be missing, and the calculated digest will be ignored when
|
|
choosing the authoritative copies. So, please use the above command with caution.
|
|
|
|
If ``read_error`` is listed in the ``errors`` attribute of a shard, the
|
|
inconsistency is likely due to disk errors. You might want to check your disk
|
|
used by that OSD.
|
|
|
|
If you receive ``active + clean + inconsistent`` states periodically due to
|
|
clock skew, you may consider configuring your `NTP`_ daemons on your
|
|
monitor hosts to act as peers. See `The Network Time Protocol`_ and Ceph
|
|
`Clock Settings`_ for additional details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erasure Coded PGs are not active+clean
|
|
======================================
|
|
|
|
When CRUSH fails to find enough OSDs to map to a PG, it will show as a
|
|
``2147483647`` which is ITEM_NONE or ``no OSD found``. For instance::
|
|
|
|
[2,1,6,0,5,8,2147483647,7,4]
|
|
|
|
Not enough OSDs
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
If the Ceph cluster only has 8 OSDs and the erasure coded pool needs
|
|
9, that is what it will show. You can either create another erasure
|
|
coded pool that requires less OSDs::
|
|
|
|
ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile k=5 m=3
|
|
ceph osd pool create erasurepool 16 16 erasure myprofile
|
|
|
|
or add a new OSDs and the PG will automatically use them.
|
|
|
|
CRUSH constraints cannot be satisfied
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
If the cluster has enough OSDs, it is possible that the CRUSH rule
|
|
imposes constraints that cannot be satisfied. If there are 10 OSDs on
|
|
two hosts and the CRUSH rule requires that no two OSDs from the
|
|
same host are used in the same PG, the mapping may fail because only
|
|
two OSDs will be found. You can check the constraint by displaying ("dumping")
|
|
the rule::
|
|
|
|
$ ceph osd crush rule ls
|
|
[
|
|
"replicated_rule",
|
|
"erasurepool"]
|
|
$ ceph osd crush rule dump erasurepool
|
|
{ "rule_id": 1,
|
|
"rule_name": "erasurepool",
|
|
"ruleset": 1,
|
|
"type": 3,
|
|
"min_size": 3,
|
|
"max_size": 20,
|
|
"steps": [
|
|
{ "op": "take",
|
|
"item": -1,
|
|
"item_name": "default"},
|
|
{ "op": "chooseleaf_indep",
|
|
"num": 0,
|
|
"type": "host"},
|
|
{ "op": "emit"}]}
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can resolve the problem by creating a new pool in which PGs are allowed
|
|
to have OSDs residing on the same host with::
|
|
|
|
ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile crush-failure-domain=osd
|
|
ceph osd pool create erasurepool 16 16 erasure myprofile
|
|
|
|
CRUSH gives up too soon
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
If the Ceph cluster has just enough OSDs to map the PG (for instance a
|
|
cluster with a total of 9 OSDs and an erasure coded pool that requires
|
|
9 OSDs per PG), it is possible that CRUSH gives up before finding a
|
|
mapping. It can be resolved by:
|
|
|
|
* lowering the erasure coded pool requirements to use less OSDs per PG
|
|
(that requires the creation of another pool as erasure code profiles
|
|
cannot be dynamically modified).
|
|
|
|
* adding more OSDs to the cluster (that does not require the erasure
|
|
coded pool to be modified, it will become clean automatically)
|
|
|
|
* use a handmade CRUSH rule that tries more times to find a good
|
|
mapping. This can be done by setting ``set_choose_tries`` to a value
|
|
greater than the default.
|
|
|
|
You should first verify the problem with ``crushtool`` after
|
|
extracting the crushmap from the cluster so your experiments do not
|
|
modify the Ceph cluster and only work on a local files::
|
|
|
|
$ ceph osd crush rule dump erasurepool
|
|
{ "rule_name": "erasurepool",
|
|
"ruleset": 1,
|
|
"type": 3,
|
|
"min_size": 3,
|
|
"max_size": 20,
|
|
"steps": [
|
|
{ "op": "take",
|
|
"item": -1,
|
|
"item_name": "default"},
|
|
{ "op": "chooseleaf_indep",
|
|
"num": 0,
|
|
"type": "host"},
|
|
{ "op": "emit"}]}
|
|
$ ceph osd getcrushmap > crush.map
|
|
got crush map from osdmap epoch 13
|
|
$ crushtool -i crush.map --test --show-bad-mappings \
|
|
--rule 1 \
|
|
--num-rep 9 \
|
|
--min-x 1 --max-x $((1024 * 1024))
|
|
bad mapping rule 8 x 43 num_rep 9 result [3,2,7,1,2147483647,8,5,6,0]
|
|
bad mapping rule 8 x 79 num_rep 9 result [6,0,2,1,4,7,2147483647,5,8]
|
|
bad mapping rule 8 x 173 num_rep 9 result [0,4,6,8,2,1,3,7,2147483647]
|
|
|
|
Where ``--num-rep`` is the number of OSDs the erasure code CRUSH
|
|
rule needs, ``--rule`` is the value of the ``ruleset`` field
|
|
displayed by ``ceph osd crush rule dump``. The test will try mapping
|
|
one million values (i.e. the range defined by ``[--min-x,--max-x]``)
|
|
and must display at least one bad mapping. If it outputs nothing it
|
|
means all mappings are successful and you can stop right there: the
|
|
problem is elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
The CRUSH rule can be edited by decompiling the crush map::
|
|
|
|
$ crushtool --decompile crush.map > crush.txt
|
|
|
|
and adding the following line to the rule::
|
|
|
|
step set_choose_tries 100
|
|
|
|
The relevant part of of the ``crush.txt`` file should look something
|
|
like::
|
|
|
|
rule erasurepool {
|
|
ruleset 1
|
|
type erasure
|
|
min_size 3
|
|
max_size 20
|
|
step set_chooseleaf_tries 5
|
|
step set_choose_tries 100
|
|
step take default
|
|
step chooseleaf indep 0 type host
|
|
step emit
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
It can then be compiled and tested again::
|
|
|
|
$ crushtool --compile crush.txt -o better-crush.map
|
|
|
|
When all mappings succeed, an histogram of the number of tries that
|
|
were necessary to find all of them can be displayed with the
|
|
``--show-choose-tries`` option of ``crushtool``::
|
|
|
|
$ crushtool -i better-crush.map --test --show-bad-mappings \
|
|
--show-choose-tries \
|
|
--rule 1 \
|
|
--num-rep 9 \
|
|
--min-x 1 --max-x $((1024 * 1024))
|
|
...
|
|
11: 42
|
|
12: 44
|
|
13: 54
|
|
14: 45
|
|
15: 35
|
|
16: 34
|
|
17: 30
|
|
18: 25
|
|
19: 19
|
|
20: 22
|
|
21: 20
|
|
22: 17
|
|
23: 13
|
|
24: 16
|
|
25: 13
|
|
26: 11
|
|
27: 11
|
|
28: 13
|
|
29: 11
|
|
30: 10
|
|
31: 6
|
|
32: 5
|
|
33: 10
|
|
34: 3
|
|
35: 7
|
|
36: 5
|
|
37: 2
|
|
38: 5
|
|
39: 5
|
|
40: 2
|
|
41: 5
|
|
42: 4
|
|
43: 1
|
|
44: 2
|
|
45: 2
|
|
46: 3
|
|
47: 1
|
|
48: 0
|
|
...
|
|
102: 0
|
|
103: 1
|
|
104: 0
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
It took 11 tries to map 42 PGs, 12 tries to map 44 PGs etc. The highest number of tries is the minimum value of ``set_choose_tries`` that prevents bad mappings (i.e. 103 in the above output because it did not take more than 103 tries for any PG to be mapped).
|
|
|
|
.. _check: ../../operations/placement-groups#get-the-number-of-placement-groups
|
|
.. _here: ../../configuration/pool-pg-config-ref
|
|
.. _Placement Groups: ../../operations/placement-groups
|
|
.. _Pool, PG and CRUSH Config Reference: ../../configuration/pool-pg-config-ref
|
|
.. _NTP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol
|
|
.. _The Network Time Protocol: http://www.ntp.org/
|
|
.. _Clock Settings: ../../configuration/mon-config-ref/#clock
|
|
|
|
|