Bug 1636508

= Documentation How-To deploy multi-backend(hdd|ssd) with ceph-ansible

.edit group_vars/osds.yml w/desired layout:
....
create_rbd_pools: true
rbd:
  name: "rbd"
  pg_num: 128
  pgp_num: 128
  rule_name: "replicated_hdd_ruleset"
  type: "replicated"
  device_class: "hdd"
rbd_ssd:
  name: "rbd_ssd"
  pg_num: 128
  pgp_num: 128
  rule_name: "replicated_ssd_ruleset"
  type: "replicated"
  device_class: "ssd"
rbd_osd_erasure:
  name: "rbd_osd_erasure"
  pg_num: 128
  pgp_num: 128
  rule_name: ""
  type: "erasure"
  erasure_profile: ""
  device_class: "hdd"
pools:
  - "{{ rbd }}"
  - "{{ rbd_osd }}"
  - "{{ rbd_osd_erasure }}"

crush_rule_config: true
crush_rule_hdd:
  name: replicated_hdd_ruleset
  root: default
  type: host
  device_class: hdd
  default: false
crush_rule_ssd:
  name: replicated_ssd_ruleset
  root: default
  type: rack
  device_class: ssd
  default: true
crush_rules:
  - "{{ crush_rule_hdd }}"
  - "{{ crush_rule_ssd }}"
create_crush_tree: true
....

.sample inventory file to assign roots:
....
[mons]
osd[4:6]

[osds]
osd1 osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack1', 'host': 'osd1' }"
osd2 osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack1', 'host': 'osd2' }"
osd3 osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack2', 'host': 'osd3' }"
osd4 osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack2', 'host': 'osd4' }"
osd5 devices="['/dev/sda', '/dev/sdb']" osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack3', 'host': 'osd5' }"
osd6 devices="['/dev/sda', '/dev/sdb']" osd_crush_location="{ 'root': 'default', 'rack': 'rack3', 'host': 'osd6' }"

[mgrs]
osd[4:6]
....


.The osd_tree will look like this:
....
TYPE NAME

root default                               
     rack rack1                             
        host osd1                          
             osd.0
             osd.10
        host osd2                          
             osd.3 
             osd.7  
             osd.12 
     rack rack2                             
        host osd3                          
             osd.1
             osd.6 
             osd.11  
        host osd4                          
             osd.4
             osd.9
             osd.13
     rack rack3                             
         host osd5                          
             osd.2
             osd.8
         host osd6                          
             osd.14
             osd.15
....

.Validation of pools
....
# for i in $(rados lspools);do echo "pool: $i"; ceph osd pool get $i crush_rule;done

pool: rbd
crush_rule: replicated_hdd_ruleset
pool: rbd_ssd
crush_rule: replicated_ssd_ruleset
pool: rbd_osd_erasure
crush_rule: erasure-code
....

Updating the QA Contact to a Hemant. Hemant will be rerouting them to the appropriate QE Associate. 

Regards,
Giri

Updating the QA Contact to a Hemant. Hemant will be rerouting them to the appropriate QE Associate. 

Regards,
Giri

Hi Dimitri,

Need your help to understand the scope of verification of this BZ.

1) I don't see any option to create pools as mentioned in summary / Comment 3 , Though it has not come in to discussion in further comments, I don't see anywhere that pool creation is being excluded from scope of this BZ.

2) class - Does it gets created by default from ceph side ?
I tried to create a crush rule for ssd, playbook failed initially as there were no class called ssd was existing (I did not have a ssd device in any node)

3) Even though I had mentioned "osd_scenario="collocated"  osd_crush_location="{ 'rack': 'added_in3x', 'host': 'mag_117' }"" in inventory, OSDs were added to "magna117" host, I'm not sure why osd_crush_location is not properly enforced on nodes.

Ill be attaching complete logs (logs of 2 runs) and other details like inentory file, all.yml, osds.yml, versions.


Please help me to understand the scope of verification of this bz.

Regards,
Vasishta Shastry
QE, Ceph

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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:1320