4 Feb
2023
4 Feb
'23
4:27 p.m.
Odd, usually cephadm handles the permissions. You may have to work through some `chown
ceph.ceph -R /dev/sd{x}`
You are correct, no osds means no crush map.
You should review https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/rados/operations/crush-map/
You can check the crush rules with `ceph osd crush dump`
I would still suggest your best course of action is to get your monitors and managers all
on the same version first. Enabling orchestrator and cephadm and then adopting and
upgrading each is probably the easiest way to do that. Once your mons and managers are
all consistent, you should be less likely to see oddities like no result for
autoscale-status (that’s a ceph manager function).
Regards,
Josh Beaman
From: Thomas Cannon <thomas.cannon(a)pronto.ai>
Date: Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:57 PM
To: Beaman, Joshua (Contractor) <Joshua_Beaman(a)comcast.com>
Cc: ceph-users(a)ceph.io <ceph-users(a)ceph.io>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [ceph-users] Any ceph constants available?
As for why the balancer isn’t working, first is 89 the correct number of OSDs after you
added the 4th host?
OSD 0-88 is on hosts 1-3 for a total of 89 OSDs. Host #4 has 20 drives and while ceph is
trying to add them, it gets as far as trying to mkfs and then it errors out — you can see
the whole error here:
Feb 02 10:56:28 boreal-01 bash[3915]: debug 2023-02-02T10:56:28.598+0000
7ff59a8<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/STg4t8FJ__;!!CQl…
pastebin.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/STg4t8FJ__;…
[favicon.ico]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/STg4t8FJ__;…
I’d wonder if your new host is in the correct root of the crush map. Check `ceph osd
tree` to ensure that all storage hosts are equal and subordinate to the same root
(probably default).
No OSDs so it isn’t in the crush map yet. Or am I doing that wrong?
The results of the command:
root@boreal-01:/var/lib/ceph# ceph osd treeID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE
NAME<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/kwCcKJ5f__;!!CQl3mc…
pastebin.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/kwCcKJ5f__;…
[favicon.ico]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pastebin.com/kwCcKJ5f__;…
At 62% raw utilization you should be OK to rebalance, but things get more challenging
above 70% full, and downright painful above 80%.
You should also check your pool pg_nums with `ceph osd pool autoscale-status`. If the
autoscaler isn’t enabled, some pg_num adjustments might bump loose the balancer.
Here is gets very odd.
root@boreal-01:/var/lib/ceph# ceph osd pool autoscale-status
root@boreal-01:/var/lib/ceph#
Nothing?
It seems to be on?
root@boreal-01:/var/lib/ceph# ceph osd pool ls detail
pool 1 '.mgr' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0 object_hash rjenkins
pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 26582 flags hashpspool,nearfull
stripe_width 0 pg_num_max 32 pg_num_min 1 application mgr
pool 2 'fs_pool' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins
pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 autoscale_mode on last_change 26582 lfor 0/0/6008 flags
hashpspool,nearfull,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application cephfs,rbd
pool 5 'fs_metadata_pool' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 0 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode on last_change 26582 lfor 0/0/300 flags
hashpspool,nearfull stripe_width 0 pg_autoscale_bias 4 pg_num_min 16 recovery_priority 5
application cephfs,rbd
pool 10 'mlScratchStorage_metadata' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 2
object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 10500 flags
hashpspool stripe_width 0 pg_autoscale_bias 4 pg_num_min 16 recovery_priority 5
application cephfs
pool 11 'mlScratchStorage' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 2 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 10498 flags hashpspool
stripe_width 0 application cephfs
pool 12 'RBD_block_HDD_slow' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 26582 flags hashpspool,nearfull
stripe_width 0 application rbd
pool 13 'RBD_block_SSD_fast' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 2 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode on last_change 11287 flags
hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application rbd
I see there are different rules applied to the pools but honestly have no idea what that
means. Sadly, I am learning on the job here and the curve is pretty steep. Are the drives
not balancing because of rules being misapplied?
Thank you for all of your help here.
Thomas
It’s concerning that you have 4 pools warning nearful, but 7 pools in the cluster. This
may imply that the pools are not distributed equally among your osds and buckets in your
crush map. Check `ceph osd pool ls detail` and see what crush_rule is assigned to each
pool. If they’re not all the same, you’re going to need to do some digging into your
crush map to figure out why and if it’s for a good reason, or poor design or
implementation.
Best of luck,
Josh
From: Thomas Cannon <thomas.cannon@pronto.ai<mailto:thomas.cannon@pronto.ai>>
Date: Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:02 PM
To: ceph-users@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>
<ceph-users@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ceph-users] Any ceph constants available?
Hello Ceph community.
The company that recently hired me has a 3 mode ceph cluster that has been running and
stable. I am the new lone administrator here and do not know ceph and this is my first
experience with it.
The issue was that it is/was running out of space, which is why I made a 4th node and
attempted to add it into the cluster. Along the way, things have begun to break. The
manager daemon on boreal-01 failed to boreal-02 along the way and I tried to get it to
fail back to boreal-01, but was unable, and realized while working on it yesterday I
realized that the nodes in the cluster are all running different versions of the software.
I suspect that might be a huge part of why things aren’t working as expected.
Boreal-01 - the host - 17.2.5:
root@boreal-01:/home/kadmin# ceph -v
ceph version 17.2.5 (98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy (stable)
root@boreal-01:/home/kadmin#
Boreal-01 - the admin docker instance running on the host 17.2.1:
root@boreal-01:/home/kadmin# cephadm shell
Inferring fsid 951fa730-0228-11ed-b1ef-f925f77b75d3
Inferring config /var/lib/ceph/951fa730-0228-11ed-b1ef-f925f77b75d3/mon.boreal-01/config
Using ceph image with id 'e5af760fa1c1' and tag 'v17' created on
2022-06-23 19:49:45 +0000 UTC
quay.io/ceph/ceph@sha256:d3f3e1b59a304a280a3a81641ca730982da141dad41e942631e4c5d88711a66b<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/quay.io/ceph/ceph@sha256:d3f3e1b59a304a280a3a81641ca730982da141dad41e942631e4c5d88711a66b__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BTOvr_GkkZl47ejiIQ2nB8FZ3SijAE0tnQEj2rZxm2eu_lGj9pwlC8wfBR1c-JAk9WNxRpdhoLd7Yunrggjc771hy9MnVw$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://quay.io/ceph/ceph@sha256:d3f3e1b59a304a280a3a81641ca730982da141dad41e942631e4c5d88711a66b__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!ERXWTWjDf0OO89IxXEOZHRD0kRqiBmcqBpQtABPAF5wrsGCao8AUcYFFpTyIpgo4jMF0e5xSQxJHg8trYfO8oHMBm4tZEQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/quay.io/ceph/ceph@sha256:d3f3e1b59a304a280a3a81641ca730982da141dad41e942631e4c5d88711a66b__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!ERXWTWjDf0OO89IxXEOZHRD0kRqiBmcqBpQtABPAF5wrsGCao8AUcYFFpTyIpgo4jMF0e5xSQxJHg8trYfO8oHMBm4tZEQ$>
>
root@boreal-01:/# ceph -v
ceph version 17.2.1 (ec95624474b1871a821a912b8c3af68f8f8e7aa1) quincy (stable)
root@boreal-01:/#
Boreal-02 - 15.2.6:
root@boreal-02:/home/kadmin# ceph -v
ceph version 15.2.16 (d46a73d6d0a67a79558054a3a5a72cb561724974) octopus (stable)
root@boreal-02:/home/kadmin#
Boreal-03 - 15.2.8:
root@boreal-03:/home/kadmin# ceph -v
ceph version 15.2.18 (f2877ae32a72fc25acadef57597f44988b805c38) octopus (stable)
root@boreal-03:/home/kadmin#
And the host I added - Boreal-04 - 17.2.5:
root@boreal-04:/home/kadmin# ceph -v
ceph version 17.2.5 (98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy (stable)
root@boreal-04:/home/kadmin#
The cluster ins’t rebalancing data, and drives are filling up unevenly, despite auto
balancing being on. I can run a df and see that it isn’t working. However it says it is:
root@boreal-01:/# ceph balancer status
{
"active": true,
"last_optimize_duration": "0:00:00.011905",
"last_optimize_started": "Fri Feb 3 18:39:02 2023",
"mode": "upmap",
"optimize_result": "Unable to find further optimization, or pool(s)
pg_num is decreasing, or distribution is already perfect",
"plans": []
}
root@boreal-01:/#
root@boreal-01:/# ceph -s
cluster:
id: 951fa730-0228-11ed-b1ef-f925f77b75d3
health: HEALTH_WARN
There are daemons running an older version of ceph
6 nearfull osd(s)
3 pgs not deep-scrubbed in time
3 pgs not scrubbed in time
4 pool(s) nearfull
1 daemons have recently crashed
services:
mon: 4 daemons, quorum boreal-01,boreal-02,boreal-03,boreal-04 (age 22h)
mgr: boreal-02.lqxcvk(active, since 19h), standbys: boreal-03.vxhpad,
boreal-01.ejaggu
mds: 2/2 daemons up, 2 standby
osd: 89 osds: 89 up (since 5d), 89 in (since 45h)
data:
volumes: 2/2 healthy
pools: 7 pools, 549 pgs
objects: 227.23M objects, 193 TiB
usage: 581 TiB used, 356 TiB / 937 TiB avail
pgs: 533 active+clean
16 active+clean+scrubbing+deep
io:
client: 55 MiB/s rd, 330 KiB/s wr, 21 op/s rd, 45 op/s wr
root@boreal-01:/#
Part of me suspects that I exacerbated the problems by trying to monkey with boreal-04 for
several days, trying to get the drives inside the machine turned into OSDs so that they
would be used. One thing I did was attempt to upgrade the code on that machine, and I
could have triggered a cluster-wide upgrade that failed outside of 1 and 4. With 2 and 3
not even running the same major release, if I did make that mistake, I can see why instead
of an upgrade, things would be worse.
According to the documentation, I should be able to upgrade the entire cluster by running
a single command on the admin node, but when I go to run commands I get errors that even
google can’t solve:
root@boreal-01:/# ceph orch host ls
Error ENOENT: Module not found
root@boreal-01:/#
Consequently, I have very little faith that running commands to upgrade everything so that
it’s all running the same code will work. I think each host could be upgraded and fix
things, but do not feel confident doing so and risking our data.
Hopefully that gives a better idea of the problems I am facing. I am hoping for some
professional services hours with someone who is a true expert with this software, to get
us to a stable and sane deployment that can be managed without it being a terrifying
guessing game, trying to get it to work.
If that is you, or if you know someone who can help — please contact me!
Thank you!
Thomas
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>
To unsubscribe send an email to
ceph-users-leave@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>