From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16D8D715 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:20:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF8381478D for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:20:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02F2642A0A for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5d60e2f0-7d45-75a5-8fd9-506f950c5d2f@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:20:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer References: <20230418122646.3079833-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230418122646.3079833-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 2.078 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -4.279 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix #4631: ceph: osd: create: add osds-per-device X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:20:19 -0000 Am 18.04.23 um 14:26 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > Allows to automatically create multiple OSDs per physical device. The > main use case are fast NVME drives that would be bottlenecked by a > single OSD service. > > By using the 'ceph-volume lvm batch' command instead of the 'ceph-volume > lvm create' for multiple OSDs / device, we don't have to deal with the > split of the drive ourselves. > > But this means that the parameters to specify a DB or WAL device won't > work as the 'batch' command doesn't use them. Dedicated DB and WAL > devices don't make much sense anyway if we place the OSDs on fast NVME > drives. > > Some other changes to how the command is built were needed as well, as > the 'batch' command needs the path to the disk as a positional argument, > not as '--data /dev/sdX'. > We drop the '--cluster-fsid' paramter because the 'batch' command > doesn't accept it. The 'create' will fall back to reading it from the > ceph.conf file. > > Removal of OSDs works as expected without any code changes. As long as > there are other OSDs on a disk, the VG & PV won't be removed, even if > 'cleanup' is enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer > --- I noticed a warning while testing --> DEPRECATION NOTICE --> You are using the legacy automatic disk sorting behavior --> The Pacific release will change the default to --no-auto --> passed data devices: 1 physical, 0 LVM --> relative data size: 0.3333333333333333 Note that I'm on Quincy, so maybe they didn't still didn't change it :P > @@ -275,6 +275,12 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > type => 'string', > description => "Set the device class of the OSD in crush." > }, > + 'osds-per-device' => { > + optional => 1, > + type => 'number', should be integer > + minimum => '1', > + description => 'OSD services per physical device. Can improve fast NVME utilization.', Can we add an explicit recommendation against doing it for other disk types? I imagine it's not beneficial for those, or? > + }, > }, > }, > returns => { type => 'string' }, > @@ -294,6 +300,15 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > # extract parameter info and fail if a device is set more than once > my $devs = {}; > > + # allow 'osds-per-device' only without dedicated db and/or wal devs. We cannot specify them with > + # 'ceph-volume lvm batch' and they don't make a lot of sense on fast NVMEs anyway. > + if ($param->{'osds-per-device'}) { > + for my $type ( qw(db_dev wal_dev) ) { > + die "Cannot use 'osds-per-device' parameter with '${type}'" Missing newline after error message. Could also use raise_param_exc(). > + if $param->{$type}; > + } > + } > + > my $ceph_conf = cfs_read_file('ceph.conf'); > > my $osd_network = $ceph_conf->{global}->{cluster_network};