Actions
Bug #4266
closedcrush placement from crushtool mismatches observed behavior for pools other than zero
Status:
Won't Fix
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
% Done:
0%
Source:
Development
Tags:
Backport:
Regression:
Severity:
3 - minor
Reviewed:
Affected Versions:
ceph-qa-suite:
Component(FS):
Labels (FS):
Pull request ID:
Crash signature (v1):
Crash signature (v2):
Description
Because OSDs add the pool id to the pg number to form the x passed to crush_do_rule, whereas crushtool just gets an x range, the pg assignment to osd may seem to differ between the two.
I suppose documenting in the cmd line usage the fact that you have to add the pool id to the pg range when determining the x range you're interested in might suffice to address this mismatch, although it might be desirable if crushtool would take pool and pg counts rather than x.
Actions