Bug 1306842
| Summary: | Adding a new OSD to a Ceph cluster with a CRUSH weight of 0 causes 'ceph df' to report invalid MAX AVAIL on pools | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage | Reporter: | Mike Hackett <mhackett> |
| Component: | RADOS | Assignee: | Kefu Chai <kchai> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Ramakrishnan Periyasamy <rperiyas> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | Bara Ancincova <bancinco> |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 1.3.1 | CC: | ceph-eng-bugs, dzafman, flucifre, hnallurv, icolle, kchai, kdreyer, ksquizza, tserlin, vumrao |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | 1.3.3 | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | RHEL: ceph-0.94.7-5.el7cp Ubuntu: ceph_0.94.7-3redhat1trusty | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: |
."ceph df" now shows proper value of "MAX AVAIL"
When adding a new OSD node to the cluster by using the `ceph-deploy` utility with the `osd_crush_initial_weight` option set to `0`, the value of the `MAX AVAIL` field in the output of the `ceph df` command was `0` for each pool instead of the proper numerical value. As a consequence, other applications using Ceph, such as OpenStack Cinder, assumed that there is no space available to provision new volumes. This bug has been fixed, and `ceph df` now shows proper value of `MAX AVAIL` as expected.
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-09-29 12:56:37 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1335269 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1348597, 1372735 | ||
|
Description
Mike Hackett
2016-02-11 21:08:28 UTC
Assigned bug to kchai per sjust request. Better representation of test from 'ceph df' output:
Before adding an OSD:
GLOBAL:
SIZE AVAIL RAW USED %RAW USED
589T 345T 243T 41.32
POOLS:
NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL OBJECTS
data 0 816M 0 102210G 376
metadata 1 120M 0 102210G 94
images 5 11990G 1.99 68140G 1536075
volumes 6 63603G 10.54 68140G 16462022
instances 8 5657G 0.94 68140G 1063602
rbench 12 260M 0 68140G 22569
scratch 13 40960 0 68140G 10
After adding an OSD:
GLOBAL:
SIZE AVAIL RAW USED %RAW USED
590T 346T 243T 41.24
POOLS:
NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL OBJECTS
data 0 816M 0 0 376
metadata 1 120M 0 0 94
images 5 11990G 1.98 0 1536075
volumes 6 63603G 10.52 0 16462022
instances 8 5657G 0.94 0 1063602
rbench 12 260M 0 0 22569
scratch 13 40960 0 0 10
merged into hammer https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6834. Fix in 0.94.7 - Verified adding OSD to cluster having data & Journal partition on same disk and different disks, "ceph df" command has "MAX AVAIL" data. Output captured for reference.
[root@host1]# ceph osd tree
ID WEIGHT TYPE NAME UP/DOWN REWEIGHT PRIMARY-AFFINITY
-1 10.79991 root default
-2 2.69998 host magna105
0 0.89999 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000
1 0.89999 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000
2 0.89999 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000
-3 2.69998 host magna107
3 0.89999 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000
4 0.89999 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000
5 0.89999 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000
-4 2.69998 host magna108
6 0.89999 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000
7 0.89999 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000
8 0.89999 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000
-5 2.69997 host magna109
10 0.89999 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000
9 0.89999 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000
11 0.89998 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000
-6 0 host magna110
12 0 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000
[root@host1]# ceph df
GLOBAL:
SIZE AVAIL RAW USED %RAW USED
12043G 11947G 98290M 0.80
POOLS:
NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL OBJECTS
rbd 0 7173M 0.17 3655G 1836528
pool1 1 2456M 0.06 3655G 628740
pool2 2 2556M 0.06 3655G 654449
[root@host1]# ceph -v
ceph version 0.94.9-1.el7cp (72b3e852266cea8a99b982f7aa3dde8ca6b48bd3)
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-1972.html |