I agree, I have never seen someone using it.
> On May 8, 2025, at 2:58 AM, Eugen Block <ebl...@nde.ag> wrote: > > Hi, > > two years ago I created this tracker: > > https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/61861 > > There was also a thread here on this list: > > https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@ceph.io/message/RLTF4NTN5KGRSI4LEO43XUGHHP2GTKKO/ > > We did consider it during a proof of concept once, but I had the impression > that the plugin did not work as expected, and so did OP from the mentioned > thread. So if you asked me, I wouldn't recommend it. > > Regards, > Eugen > > Zitat von Joachim Kraftmayer <joachim.kraftma...@clyso.com>: > >> Hi Torkil, >> I would be interested in your results. It's been a few years since I saw >> the LRC plugin in production. >> Does anyone else in the ceph community use it? >> Joachim >> >> joachim.kraftma...@clyso.com >> >> www.clyso.com >> >> Hohenzollernstr. 27, 80801 Munich >> >> Utting | HR: Augsburg | HRB: 25866 | USt. ID-Nr.: DE275430677 >> >> >> >>> Am Mi., 7. Mai 2025 um 21:00 Uhr schrieb Torkil Svensgaard <tor...@drcmr.dk >>>> : >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 07-05-2025 18:16, Anthony D'Atri wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> On May 7, 2025, at 5:06 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Den ons 7 maj 2025 kl 10:59 skrev Torkil Svensgaard <tor...@drcmr.dk>: >>> >>> We are looking at a cluster split between two DCs with the DCs as >>> >>> failure domains. >>> >>> >>> >>> Am I right in assuming that any recovery or backfill taking place >>> should >>> >>> largely happen inside each DC and not between them? Or can no such >>> >>> assumptions be made? >>> >>> Pools would be EC 4+8, if that matters. >>> >> >>> >> Unless I am mistaken, the first/primary of each PG is the one "doing" >>> >> the backfills, so if the primaries are evenly distributed between the >>> >> sites, the source of all backfills would be in the remote DC in 50% of >>> >> the cases. >>> > >>> > Are we talking about recovery, or backfill? >>> >>> I was asking about both >>> >>> >> I do not think the backfills are going to calculate how it can use >>> >> only "local" pieces to rebuild a missing/degraded PG piece without >>> >> going over the DC-DC link even if it is theoretically possible. >>> > >>> > The LRC plugin might be able to localize *recovery*, but backfill from >>> adding OSDs, changing CRUSH rules, etc. would always have to hit both. >>> >>> Thanks both, I'll take a look at the LRC plugin. >>> >>> Mvh. >>> >>> Torkil >>> >>> >> -- >>> >> May the most significant bit of your life be positive. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Torkil Svensgaard >>> Sysadmin >>> MR-Forskningssektionen, afs. 714 >>> DRCMR, Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance >>> Hvidovre Hospital >>> Kettegård Allé 30 >>> DK-2650 Hvidovre >>> Denmark >>> Tel: +45 386 22828 >>> E-mail: tor...@drcmr.dk >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
