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 10B2490F54 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:48:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E747117AF5 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:48:15 +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 14:48:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B83384E3EB for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:39:02 +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 Ge5mHFIRBbtU for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5375E384E3EC for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:38:57 +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 DC-PLShR5fXA for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zimbra.panservice.it (zimbra.panservice.it [212.66.96.48]) by zimbra.panservice.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB46384E3EB for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:38:55 +0000 (UTC) From: Fabrizio Cuseo Reply-To: Fabrizio Cuseo To: PVE User List Message-ID: <1433103235.581941.1696250335102.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> In-Reply-To: <313d9a10-46ab-6fba-49c7-4d5a82a83ba6@coppint.com> References: <8931df75-0813-3aac-0481-f51afd328f6c@coppint.com> <359756348.305396.1557210415135.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <313d9a10-46ab-6fba-49c7-4d5a82a83ba6@coppint.com> 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-Topic: Erasure coded pool and "rbd sparsify" - laggy pgs Thread-Index: x+5fWEYN2W6h9qz1nGVUZVofm3dhfA== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.015 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 12:48:16 -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