Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log snippests): When creating a new storage class and creating a new pool, the pool is created with pg_num set to 1 even when the osd_pool_default_pg_num is 32. What's the reasoning behind this? Given the performance implications, this seems counter-intuitive. No? bash-5.1$ ceph osd pool ls detail | grep ocs-storagecluster-cephrbd-replica2-pool pool 13 'ocs-storagecluster-cephrbd-replica2-pool' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 12 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 98 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 compression_mode none application rbd bash-5.1$ ceph config get mon osd_pool_default_pg_num 32 Version of all relevant components (if applicable): OCP v4.13 Ceph v6.1 Does this issue impact your ability to continue to work with the product (please explain in detail what is the user impact)? Pool is usable but performance is less than desired. Is there any workaround available to the best of your knowledge? Yes, use the Rook/Ceph toolbox to increase the number of PGs in the pool to desired number. Rate from 1 - 5 the complexity of the scenario you performed that caused this bug (1 - very simple, 5 - very complex)? 1 - create new storage class; when selecting the pool, selected Create New Pool. Can this issue reproducible? Yes, every new pool that is created when creating a new storage class. Can this issue reproduce from the UI? Yes Actual results: pg_num and pgp_num are 1 Expected results: pg_num and pgp_num should be set to the size of osd_pool_default_pg_num.
Created attachment 2007075 [details] Storage Class screenshot
Created attachment 2007076 [details] Create BlockPool screenshot
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 (Important: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation 4.17.0 Security, Enhancement, & Bug Fix Update), 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/RHSA-2024:8676
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days