On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Christian Kauhaus <k...@gocept.com> wrote: > Am 23.06.2014 20:24, schrieb Gregory Farnum: >> Well, actually it always takes the primary copy, unless the primary >> has some way of locally telling that its version is corrupt. (This >> might happen if the primary thinks it should have an object, but it >> doesn't exist on disk.) But there's not a voting or anything at this >> time. > > Thanks Greg for the clarification. I wonder if some sort of voting during > recovery would be feasible to implement. Having this available would make a 3x > replica scheme immensely more useful.
It's a good idea, and in fact there was a discussion yesterday during the Ceph Developer Summit about making scrub repair significantly more powerful; they're keeping that use case in mind in addition to very fine-grained ones like specifying a particular replica for every object. > > In my current understanding Ceph has no guards against local bit rot (e.g., > when a local disk returns incorrect data). Yeah, it's got nothing and is relying on the local filesystem to barf if that happens. Unfortunately, neither xfs nor ext4 provide that checking functionality (which is one of the reasons we continue to look to btrfs as our long-term goal). -Greg Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > Or is there already a voting scheme > in place during deep scrub? > > Regards > > Christian > > -- > Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration > gocept gmbh & co. kg · Forsterstraße 29 · 06112 Halle (Saale) · Germany > http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 219401-11 > Python, Pyramid, Plone, Zope · consulting, development, hosting, operations > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
