ceph: default crush rule does not suit multi-OSD deployments

Bug #1098320 reported by Paul Collins
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ubuntu Cloud Archive
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned
ceph (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned
Quantal
Won't Fix
Undecided
Unassigned
Raring
Fix Released
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Version: 0.48.2-0ubuntu2~cloud0

Our Ceph deployments typically involve multiple OSDs per host with no disk redundancy. However the default crush rules appears to distribute by OSD, not by host, which I believe will not prevent replicas from landing on the same host.

I've been working around this by updating the crush rules as follows and installing the resulting crushmap in the cluster, but since we aim for fully automated deployment (using Juju and MaaS) this is suboptimal.

--- crushmap.txt 2013-01-10 20:33:21.265809301 +0000
+++ crushmap.new 2013-01-10 20:32:49.496745778 +0000
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
        min_size 1
        max_size 10
        step take default
- step choose firstn 0 type osd
+ step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
        step emit
 }
 rule metadata {
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
        min_size 1
        max_size 10
        step take default
- step choose firstn 0 type osd
+ step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
        step emit
 }
 rule rbd {
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@
        min_size 1
        max_size 10
        step take default
- step choose firstn 0 type osd
+ step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
        step emit
 }

Tags: canonistack
Changed in ceph (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium
Changed in cloud-archive:
status: New → Confirmed
James Page (james-page)
Changed in cloud-archive:
importance: Undecided → Medium
Revision history for this message
Paul Collins (pjdc) wrote :

This has been fixed on upstream's master branch by commit c236a51a8040508ee893e4c64b206e40f9459a62 and cherry-picked to the bobtail branch as 6008b1d8e4587d5a3aea60684b1d871401496942. The change does not seem to have been applied to argonaut.

Revision history for this message
Sage Weil (sage-newdream) wrote :

Is it important that this is backported to argonaut, given bobtail will be in 13.04?

Revision history for this message
Paul Collins (pjdc) wrote :

From my point of view, probably not very. We (= Canonical IS) are running 12.04 LTS plus packages from the Ubuntu Cloud Archive. I don't believe we'll do many more folsom+argonaut deployments before grizzly+bobtail arrives, and in any case it's sufficiently well documented internally that it's not a big problem for us.

James Page (james-page)
Changed in ceph (Ubuntu Quantal):
status: New → Won't Fix
Changed in ceph (Ubuntu Raring):
status: New → Fix Released
Changed in cloud-archive:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Changed in ceph (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.