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 32EC191276 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:13:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C2011A971 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:13:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra.panservice.it (zimbra.panservice.it [212.66.96.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:13:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004F5384E9B1 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zimbra.panservice.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.panservice.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10032) with ESMTP id bmePpIGxZ2jM for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93002384E9B2 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at zimbra.panservice.it Received: from zimbra.panservice.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.panservice.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1z9j9L112NnF for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zimbra.panservice.it (zimbra.panservice.it [212.66.96.48]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B951384E9B1 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Fabrizio Cuseo Reply-To: Fabrizio Cuseo To: Proxmox VE user list Message-ID: <1254166099.588620.1696266216214.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [212.66.96.161] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4562 (ZimbraWebClient - FF117 (Win)/8.8.15_GA_3) Thread-Index: 2v/QzFGyB1TW9zQygGoWu6mRXmo0tQ== Thread-Topic: Erasure coded pool and "rbd sparsify" - laggy pgs X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.976 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 SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [PVE-User] Erasure coded pool and "rbd sparsify" - laggy pgs X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 17:13:16 -0000 Hello. I am trying for the first time to setup an erasure coded pool with PVE 8.0 Cluster is 6 hosts, 24 OSD each one (12 ssd + 12 sas), 4x10Gbit. One pool is replica 3 for ssd class drives (2048 PGs). Another pool is replica 3 for hdd class drives (with 0.45 target ratio and 1024 PGs) The last one, is an EC pool (4+2) sharing the same hdd class drives (with 0.5 target ratio, and 256 PGs). Of course, pveceph creates the ec metadata pool, with replica 3, hdd class drives, 0.05 target ratio and 32 PGs. If I move a drive from another storage to EC pool, i loose the sparse setting, so I need to "rbd sparsify" the rbd file. But, when I do it on an EC pool, i can see ceph-osd processes using 100% cpu, and see on ceph mgr log, PGs in "active + laggy" state. No any problem when I use the vm with drive image in erasure coded pool (but I think because is less IO intensive than a "sparsify"). Someone had the same problem or use EC pool for virtual machines ? I would like to have some "slow volumes" for archiving only purpose, but i am afraid that all the cluster could be impacted. Regards, Fabrizio