Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pacific: ceph-volume: fix fast device alloc size on mulitple device #47292

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

MrFreezeex
Copy link
Member

backport tracker: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56629


backport of #46666
parent tracker: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56031

this backport was staged using ceph-backport.sh version 16.0.0.6848
find the latest version at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/main/src/script/ceph-backport.sh

The size computed by get_physical_fast_allocs() was wrong when the
function had multiple devices to treat.

For instance if there is 4 OSDs and 2 fast devices of each 10G while
allocating 2 slots per fast devvices. The behavior before was that each
slot would be 2.5G meaning that both fast devices would half full. The
behavior now is that each slot will take 5G so that the fast devices
would be full.

Fixes: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56031
Signed-off-by: Arthur Outhenin-Chalandre <arthur.outhenin-chalandre@cern.ch>
(cherry picked from commit d0f9e93)
Signed-off-by: Arthur Outhenin-Chalandre <arthur.outhenin-chalandre@cern.ch>
(cherry picked from commit 5255d4b)
@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex requested a review from a team as a code owner July 27, 2022 08:41
@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex added this to the pacific milestone Jul 27, 2022
@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex added ceph-volume backport: no-conflicts Backport without conflicts labels Jul 27, 2022
@MrFreezeex
Copy link
Member Author

jenkins test make check

@guits
Copy link
Contributor

guits commented Aug 2, 2022

jenkins test make check

@guits
Copy link
Contributor

guits commented Aug 2, 2022

jenkins test ceph-volume tox

@guits guits added DNM and removed wip-adk2-testing labels Aug 3, 2022
@guits guits closed this Aug 9, 2022
@cfsnyder
Copy link
Contributor

@guits what was the reason for not merging this Pacific backport?

@adk3798
Copy link
Contributor

adk3798 commented Nov 17, 2022

@guits what was the reason for not merging this Pacific backport?

@cfsnyder the commits from this backport ended up getting rolled into #47413 (I think for conflict resolution purposes) which was merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
4 participants