>From memory if you specify a crush rule (even if it is the same as the pool >name), it will look for a rule and error if it is not found, rather than >creating it.
The behaviour may have changed, but try explicitly not supplying a crush rule name (if you haven't already). Cheers, Tom -----Original Message----- From: aoa...@gmail.com <aoa...@gmail.com> Sent: 04 September 2019 14:43 To: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] Followup: weird behaviour with ceph osd pool create and the "crush-rule" parameter (suddenly changes behaviour) So, whilst debugging the behaviour in the first thread I created, I needed to create and then destroy pools (to avoid running out of placement groups). So, I did something like: ceph osd pool create ec2pool 2048 2048 erasure glasgow-eci-test ec2pool 0 ceph osd pool create ec3pool 2048 2048 erasure glasgow-eci-test2 ec3pool 0 (for two different types of ecpool) and then removed them with ceph osd pool rm ec2pool ec2pool --yes-i-really-really-mean-it ceph osd pool rm ec3pool ec3pool --yes-i-really-really-mean-it Now, however, something seems to have broken, as if I attempt: ceph osd pool create ec4pool 2048 2048 erasure glasgow-eci-test3 ec4pool 0 it fails with Error ENOENT: specified rule ec4pool doesn't exist (which, of course, it does not, as the whole point of the syntax is that ceph should build the crush rule for me and name it appropriately; and this worked for all the previous times). ceph health returns HEALTH OK still. Any suggestions? I've googled around a bit on this, but I can't seem to find anyone discussing it... Sam _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
