[ceph-users] Re: Removing OSD very slow (objects misplaced)
Thanks, Liang. But this doesn't help since Ceph 17. Setting the mclock profile to "high recovery" speeds up a little bit. The main problem remains: 95% of the recovery time is needed for just one PG. This was not the case before Quincy. 郑亮 schrieb am Mo., 26. Dez. 2022, 03:52: > Hi erich, > You can reference following link: > https://www.suse.com/support/kb/doc/?id=19693 > > Thanks, > Liang Zheng > > > E Taka <0eta...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月16日周五 01:52写道： > >> Hi, >> >> when removing some OSD with the command `ceph orch osd rm X`, the >> rebalancing starts very fast, but after a while it almost stalls with a >> very low recovering rate: >> >> Dec 15 18:47:17 … : cluster [DBG] pgmap v125312: 3361 pgs: 13 >> active+clean+scrubbing+deep, 4 active+remapped+backfilling, 3344 >> active+clean; 95 TiB data, 298 TiB used, 320 TiB / 618 TiB avail; 13 MiB/s >> rd, 3.9 MiB/s wr, 610 op/s; 403603/330817302 objects misplaced (0.122%); >> 1.1 MiB/s, 2 objects/s recovering >> >> As you can see, the rate is 2 Objects/s for over 40 objects. `ceph >> orch >> osd rm status` shows long running draining processes (now over 4 days): >> >> OSD HOSTSTATE PGS REPLACE FORCE ZAPDRAIN STARTED AT >> 64 ceph05 draining1 FalseFalse False 2022-12-11 >> 16:18:14.692636+00:00 >> … >> >> Is there y way to increase the speed of the draining/rebalancing? >> >> Thanks! >> Erich >> ___ >> 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] Re: CephFS active-active
Hi Isaiah, A simple solution for multi-site redundancy is to have two nearby sites with < 3ms latency and setup crush map [0] for datacenter level redundancy instead of the default host level. Performance was adequate in my testing for large number of small files if the latency between all nodes were kept below 3 ms. Of course it also depends on your application. Ceph fs snapshot mirroring is asynchronous, so your application would need to handle the logic of switching to the replica node, operating with some missing data in a degraded state, synchronizing changes back to primary after it comes online and switching back. Too complicated IMHO. [0]: https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/rados/operations/crush-map/ Kind regards, Pavin Joseph. On 28-Dec-22 11:27 AM, Isaiah Tang Yue Shun wrote: Hi all, From the documentation, I can only find Ceph Object Gateway multi-site implementation. I wonder is it if we are using CephFS, how can we achieve active-active setup for production? Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Regards, Isaiah Tang ___ 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] Re: Urgent help! RGW Disappeared on Quincy
1. This is a guess, but check /var/[lib|run]/ceph for any lock files.
2. This is more straightforward to fix, add faster WAL/Block device/LV
for each OSD or create a fast storage pool just for metadata. Also,
experiment with MDS cache size/trim [0] settings.
[0]: https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/cephfs/cache-configuration/
On 28-Dec-22 7:23 AM, Deep Dish wrote:
Got logging enabled as per
https://ceph.io/en/news/blog/2022/centralized_logging/. My embedded
grafana doesn't come up in the dashboard, but at least I have log (files)
on my nodes. Interesting.
Two issues plaguing my cluster:
1 - RGWs not manageable
2 - MDS_SLOW_METADATA_IO warning (impact to cephfs)
Issue 1:
I have 4x RGWs deployed. All started / processes running. They all
report similar log entries:
7fcc32b6a5c0 0 deferred set uid:gid to 167:167 (ceph:ceph)
7fcc32b6a5c0 0 ceph version 17.2.5
(98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy (stable), process
radosgw, pid 2
7fcc32b6a5c0 0 framework: beast
7fcc32b6a5c0 0 framework conf key: port, val: 80
7fcc32b6a5c0 1 radosgw_Main not setting numa affinity
7fcc32b6a5c0 1 rgw_d3n: rgw_d3n_l1_local_datacache_enabled=0
7fcc32b6a5c0 1 D3N datacache enabled: 0
7fcc0869a700 0 INFO: RGWReshardLock::lock found lock on reshard.11
to be held by another RGW process; skipping for now
7fcc0bea1700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on lc.1,
sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on lc.3,
sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0bea1700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0bea1700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0bea1700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0dea5700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
7fcc0bea1700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed to acquire lock on
lc.16, sleep 5, try again
(repeating)
Seems like a stale lock, not previously cleaned up when the cluster was
busy recovering and rebalancing.
Issue 2:
ceph health detail:
[WRN] MDS_SLOW_METADATA_IO: 1 MDSs report slow metadata IOs
mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat(mds.0): 8 slow metadata IOs are blocked >
30 secs, oldest blocked for 39485 secs
Log entries from ceph02mon03 MDS host:
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131271 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131272 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131273 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131274 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131275 from mon.4
7fe36c6b8700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] : 1 slow requests, 1
included below; oldest blocked for > 33.126589 secs
7fe36c6b8700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] : slow request 33.126588
seconds old, received at 2022-12-27T19:45:45.952225+:
client_request(client.55009:99980 create
#0x1000bc2/vzdump-qemu-30003-2022_12_27-14_43_43.log
2022-12-27T19:45:45.948045+ caller_uid=0, caller_gid=0{}) currently
submit entry: journal_and_reply
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131276 from mon.4
7fe36c6b8700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] : 1 slow requests, 0
included below; oldest blocked for > 38.126737 secs
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131277 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131278 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131279 from mon.4
7fe36debb700 1 mds.fs01.ceph02mon03.rjcxat Updating MDS map to version
131280 from mon.4
I suspect that the file in the log above int's the culprit. How can I get
to the root cause of MDS slowdowns?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 3:32 PM Pavin Joseph wrote:
Interesting, the logs show the crash module [0] itself has crashed.
Something sent it a SIGINT or SIGTERM and the module didn't handle it
correctly due to what seems like a bug in the code.
I haven't experienced the crash module itself crashing yet (in Quincy)
because nothing sent a SIG[INT|TERM] to it yet.
So I'd continue investigating into why these signals were sent to the
crash module.
To fix the crash module from crashing, go to "/usr/bin/ceph-crash" and
edit the handler function on line 82 like so:
def handler(signum, frame):
print('**
[ceph-users] Re: Does Replica Count Affect Tell Bench Result or Not?
Hi, Just to add to the previous discussion, consumer SSDs like these can unfortunately be significantly *slower* than plain old HDDs for Ceph. This is because Ceph always uses SYNC writes to guarantee that data is on disk before returning. Unfortunately NAND writes are intrinsically quite slow, and tri/quad-level SSDs are the worst of them all. Enterprise SSDs solve this by having power-loss-protection capacitors, which means they can safely return the data as written the second it is in the fast RAM on the device. Cheap consumer SSDs fall in one of two categories: 1. The drive might lie and return the data as written as soon as it's in the write cache when a SYNC write is requested. This gives seemingly great performance ... until you have a power loss and your data is corrupted. Thankfully, very few drives do this today. 2. The drive treats the SYNC write correctly, which means it can't return until the request has been moved from cache to actual NAND memory, which is (very) slow. The short story is likely that all drives without power-loss-protection should be avoided, because if the performance looks great, it might mean the drive falls in category #1 instead of being a magical & cheap solution. There is unfortunately no inherent "best" SSD, but it depends on your usage. For instance, for our large data partitions we need a lot of space and high read performance, but we don't store/update the data that frequently, so we opted for Samsung PM883 drives that are only designed for 0.8 DWPD (disk-writes-per-day). In contrast, for metadata drives where we have more writes (but don't need a ton of storage), we use drives that can handle 3DWPD, like Samsung sm893. Virtually all vendors have such different lines of drives, so you will need to start by analyzing how much data you expect to write per day relative to the total storage volume and get appropriate drives. If you are operating a very read/write-intensive cluster with hundreds of operations in parallel you will benefit a lot from higher-IOPS-rate drives, but be aware that those theoretical numbers listed are typically only achieved for very large queue depths (i.e., always having 32-64 operations running in parallel). Since you are currently using consumer SSD (which definitely don't have endurance to handle intensive IO anyway), my guess is that you might rather have a lower-end setup, and then good performance depends more on having consistent low latency for all operations (including to/from the network cards). If I were to invest in new servers today, I would likely go with NVMe, mostly because it's the future and not *that* much more expensive, but for old servers almost any enterprise-class SSD with power-loss-protection from major vendors should be fine - but you need to analyse whether you need write-intensive disks or not. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Lindahl On 28 Dec 2022 at 08:44 +0100, hosseinz8...@yahoo.com , wrote: > Thanks. I am planning to change all of my disks. But do you know enterprise > SSD Disk which is best in trade of between cost & iops performance?Which > model and brand.Thanks in advance. > On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 08:44:34 AM GMT+3:30, Konstantin Shalygin > wrote: > > Hi, > > The cache was gone, optimize is proceed. This is not enterprise device, you > should never use it with Ceph 🙂 > > > k > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 27 Dec 2022, at 16:41, hosseinz8...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Thanks AnthonyI have a cluster with QLC SSD disks (Samsung QVO 860). The > > cluster works for 2 year. Now all OSDs return 12 iops when running tell > > bench which is very slow. But I Buy new QVO disks yesterday, and I added > > this new disk to cluster. For the first 1 hour, I got 100 iops from this > > new OSD. But after 1 Hour, this new disk (OSD) returns to iops 12 again as > > the same as other OLD OSDs.I can not imagine what happening?!! > > On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 12:18:07 AM GMT+3:30, Anthony D'Atri > > wrote: > > > > My understanding is that when you ask an OSD to bench (via the admin > > socket), only that OSD executes, there is no replication. Replication is a > > function of PGs. > > > > Thus, this is a narrowly-focused tool with both unique advantages and > > disadvantages. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 26, 2022, at 12:47 PM, hosseinz8...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi experts,I want to know, when I execute ceph tell osd.x bench > > > > command, is replica 3 considered in the bench or not? I mean, for > > > > example in case of replica 3, when I executing tell bench command, > > > > replica 1 of bench data write to osd.x, replica 2 write to osd.y and > > > > replica 3 write to osd.z? If this is true, it means that I can not get > > > > benchmark of only one of my OSD in the cluster because the IOPS and > > > > throughput of 2 other for example slow OSDs will affect the result of > > > > tell bench command for my target OSD.Is that true? > > > >
[ceph-users] Re: Cannot create CephFS subvolume
We are on: 17.2.4
Ceph fs volume ls output:
[
{
"name": "k8s_ssd"
},
{
"name": "inclust"
},
{
"name": "inclust_ssd"
}
]
I'd like to create a subvol in inclust_ssd volume. I can create
subvolume with same name in inclust without any problems.
Best regards,
Daniel
On 2022. 12. 28. 4:42, Milind Changire wrote:
Also, please list the volumes available on your system:
$ ceph fs volume ls
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:09 AM Milind Changire wrote:
What ceph version are you using?
$ ceph versions
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 3:17 AM Daniel Kovacs
wrote:
Hello!
I'd like to create a CephFS subvol, with these command: ceph fs
subvolume create cephfs_ssd subvol_1
I got this error: Error EINVAL: invalid value specified for
ceph.dir.subvolume
If I use another cephfs volume, there were no error reported.
What did I wrong?
Best regards,
Daniel
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
--
Milind
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Urgent help! RGW Disappeared on Quincy
Hi Pavin,
The following are additional developments.. There's one PG that's
stuck and unable to recover. I've attached relevant ceph -s / health
detail and pg stat outputs below.
- There were some remaining lock files as suggested in /var/run/ceph/
pertaining to rgw. I removed the service, deleted any stale lock files
and redeployed the RGWs. All started with the common log entries across
all:
7ff5d9aaf5c0 0 deferred set uid:gid to 167:167 (ceph:ceph)
7ff5d9aaf5c0 0 ceph version 17.2.5
(98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy (stable), process
radosgw, pid 2
7ff5d9aaf5c0 0 framework: beast
7ff5d9aaf5c0 0 framework conf key: port, val: 80
7ff5d9aaf5c0 1 radosgw_Main not setting numa affinity
7ff5d9aaf5c0 1 rgw_d3n: rgw_d3n_l1_local_datacache_enabled=0
7ff5d9aaf5c0 1 D3N datacache enabled: 0
No additional log entries are recorded since starting them post
re-deployment as per above.
The cluster settled, there is no recovery activity. There is one pg that's
stuck and I have a hunch that it's impacting MDS and RGW processes as
stated in the thread. PG is stuck as as active+remapped+backfilling:
data:
volumes: 2/2 healthy
pools: 16 pools, 1504 pgs
objects: 24.49M objects, 79 TiB
usage: 119 TiB used, 390 TiB / 508 TiB avail
pgs: 65210/146755179 objects misplaced (0.044%)
1503 active+clean
1active+remapped+backfilling
progress:
Global Recovery Event (6h)
[===.] (remaining: 73s)
# ceph health detail
HEALTH_WARN 1 MDSs report slow metadata IOs; 1 pgs not deep-scrubbed in
time; 1 pgs not scrubbed in time
[WRN] MDS_SLOW_METADATA_IO: 1 MDSs report slow metadata IOs
mds.fs01.ceph02mon02.wicrdz(mds.0): 5 slow metadata IOs are blocked >
30 secs, oldest blocked for 74436 secs
[WRN] PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED: 1 pgs not deep-scrubbed in time
pg 14.ff not deep-scrubbed since 2022-12-14T19:35:51.893008+
[WRN] PG_NOT_SCRUBBED: 1 pgs not scrubbed in time
pg 14.ff not scrubbed since 2022-12-17T06:33:40.577932+
>From the following pg query:
- "pgid": "14.ffs0" is stuck as peering (osd 5)
- "pgid": "14.ffs4" is stuck as unknown (osd 18)
- "pgid": "14.ffs5" is stuck as unknown (osd 24)
- "pgid": "14.ffs3" is stuck as unknown (osd 42)
- "pgid": "14.ffs2" is stick as unknown (osd 58)
- "pgid": "14.ffs1" is marked as active+clean (osd 36)
# ceph pg 14.ff query
{
"snap_trimq": "[]",
"snap_trimq_len": 0,
"state": "active+remapped+backfilling",
"epoch": 19594,
"up": [
5,
36,
58,
42,
18,
24
],
"acting": [
50,
36,
5,
26,
15,
46
],
"backfill_targets": [
"5(0)",
"18(4)",
"24(5)",
"42(3)",
"58(2)"
],
"acting_recovery_backfill": [
"5(0)",
"5(2)",
"15(4)",
"18(4)",
"24(5)",
"26(3)",
"36(1)",
"42(3)",
"46(5)",
"50(0)",
"58(2)"
],
"info": {
"pgid": "14.ffs0",
"last_update": "19550'35077",
"last_complete": "19550'35077",
"log_tail": "13761'32157",
"last_user_version": 35077,
"last_backfill": "MAX",
"purged_snaps": [],
"history": {
"epoch_created": 4537,
"epoch_pool_created": 2032,
"last_epoch_started": 16616,
"last_interval_started": 16615,
"last_epoch_clean": 14655,
"last_interval_clean": 14654,
"last_epoch_split": 4537,
"last_epoch_marked_full": 0,
"same_up_since": 16613,
"same_interval_since": 16615,
"same_primary_since": 16615,
"last_scrub": "3817'25569",
"last_scrub_stamp": "2022-12-17T06:33:40.577932+",
"last_deep_scrub": "3756'21592",
"last_deep_scrub_stamp": "2022-12-14T19:35:51.893008+",
"last_clean_scrub_stamp": "2022-12-17T06:33:40.577932+",
"prior_readable_until_ub": 0
},
"stats": {
"version": "19550'35077",
"reported_seq": 396919,
"reported_epoch": 19594,
"state": "active+remapped+backfilling",
"last_fresh": "2022-12-28T22:03:20.278478+",
"last_change": "2022-12-26T21:27:51.600940+",
"last_active": "2022-12-28T22:03:20.278478+",
"last_peered": "2022-12-28T22:03:20.278478+",
"last_clean": "2022-12-26T21:27:45.471954+",
"last_became_active": "2022-12-26T21:27:51.085966+",
"last_became_peered": "2022-12-26T21:27:51.085966+",
"last_unstale": "2022-12-28T22:03:20.278478+",
"last_undegraded": "2022-12-28T22:03:20.278478+",
"la
[ceph-users] radosgw not working after upgrade to Quincy
Hello everyone,
After the upgrade from Pacific to Quincy the radosgw service is no longer
listening on network port, but the process is running. I get the following in
the log:
2022-12-29T02:07:35.641+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 ceph version 17.2.5
(98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy
(stable), process radosgw, pid 36072
2022-12-29T02:07:35.641+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework: civetweb
2022-12-29T02:07:35.641+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework conf key: port, val: 443s
2022-12-29T02:07:35.641+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework conf key:
ssl_certificate, val: /etc/ssl/private/s3.arhont.
com-bundle.pem
2022-12-29T02:07:35.641+ 7f5df868ccc0 1 radosgw_Main not setting numa
affinity
2022-12-29T02:07:35.645+ 7f5df868ccc0 1 rgw_d3n:
rgw_d3n_l1_local_datacache_enabled=0
2022-12-29T02:07:35.645+ 7f5df868ccc0 1 D3N datacache enabled: 0
2022-12-29T02:07:38.917+ 7f5d15ffb700 -1 sync log trim: bool
{anonymous}::sanity_check_endpoints(const DoutPre
fixProvider*, rgw::sal::RadosStore*):688 WARNING: Cluster is is misconfigured!
Zonegroup default (default) in Rea
lm london-ldex ( 29474c50-f1c2-4155-ac3b-a42e9d413624) has no endpoints!
2022-12-29T02:07:38.917+ 7f5d15ffb700 -1 sync log trim: bool
{anonymous}::sanity_check_endpoints(const DoutPre
fixProvider*, rgw::sal::RadosStore*):698 ERROR: Cluster is is misconfigured!
Zone default (default) in Zonegroup
default ( default) in Realm london-ldex ( 29474c50-f1c2-4155-ac3b-a42e9d413624)
has no endpoints! Trimming is imp
ossible.
2022-12-29T02:07:38.917+ 7f5d15ffb700 -1 sync log trim: RGWCoroutine*
create_meta_log_trim_cr(const DoutPrefixProvider*, rgw::sal::RadosStore*,
RGWHTTPManager*, int, utime_t):718 ERROR: Cluster is is misconfigured! Refusing
to trim.
2022-12-29T02:07:38.917+ 7f5d15ffb700 -1 rgw rados thread: Bailing out of
trim thread!
2022-12-29T02:07:38.917+ 7f5d15ffb700 0 rgw rados thread: ERROR:
processor->process() returned error r=-22
2022-12-29T02:07:38.953+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework: beast
2022-12-29T02:07:38.953+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework conf key:
ssl_certificate, val: config://rgw/cert/$realm/$zone.crt
2022-12-29T02:07:38.953+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 framework conf key:
ssl_private_key, val: config://rgw/cert/$realm/$zone.key
2022-12-29T02:07:38.953+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 WARNING: skipping unknown
framework: civetweb
2022-12-29T02:07:38.977+ 7f5df868ccc0 1 mgrc service_daemon_register
rgw.1371662715 metadata {arch=x86_64,ceph_release=quincy,ceph_version=ceph
version 17.2.5 (98318ae89f1a893a6ded3a640405cdbb33e08757) quincy
(stable),ceph_version_short=17.2.5,cpu=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @
2.00GHz,distro=ubuntu,distro_description=Ubuntu 20.04.5
LTS,distro_version=20.04,frontend_config#0=civetweb port=443s
ssl_certificate=/etc/ssl/private/s3.arhont.com-bundle.pem,frontend_type#0=civetweb,hostname=arh-ibstorage1-ib,id=radosgw1.gateway,kernel_description=#62~20.04.1-Ubuntu
SMP Tue Nov 22 21:24:20 UTC
2022,kernel_version=5.15.0-56-generic,mem_swap_kb=24686688,mem_total_kb=98747048,num_handles=1,os=Linux,pid=36072,realm_id=29474c50-f1c2-4155-ac3b-a42e9d413624,realm_name=london-ldex,zone_id=default,zone_name=default,zonegroup_id=default,zonegroup_name=default}
2022-12-29T02:07:39.177+ 7f5d057fa700 0 lifecycle: RGWLC::process() failed
to acquire lock on lc.29, sleep 5, try again
I have been running radosgw service on 15.2.x cluster previously without any
issues. Last week I have upgraded the cluster to 16.2.x followed by a further
upgrade to 17.2. Here is what my configuration file looks like:
[client.radosgw1.gateway]
host = arh-ibstorage1-ib
keyring = /etc/ceph/keyring.radosgw1.gateway
log_file = /var/log/ceph/radosgw.log
rgw_dns_name = s3.arhont.com
rgw_num_rados_handles = 8
rgw_thread_pool_size = 512
rgw_cache_enabled = true
rgw cache lru size = 10
rgw enable ops log = false
rgw enable usage log = false
rgw_frontends = civetweb port=443s
ssl_certificate=/etc/ssl/private/s3.arhont.com-bundle.pem
Please let me know how to fix the problem?
Many thanks
Andrei
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: radosgw not working after upgrade to Quincy
Hi, Just try to read your logs: > 2022-12-29T02:07:38.953+ 7f5df868ccc0 0 WARNING: skipping unknown > framework: civetweb You try to use the `civetweb`, it was absent in quincy release. You need to update your configs and use `beast` instead k > On 29 Dec 2022, at 09:20, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > > Please let me know how to fix the problem? ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Does Replica Count Affect Tell Bench Result or Not?
>> Thanks. I am planning to change all of my disks. But do you know enterprise >> SSD Disk which is best in trade of between cost & iops performance? In my prior response I meant to ask what your workload is like. RBD? RGW? Write-heavy? Mostly reads? This influences what drives make sense. — aad ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] ceph osd df tree information missing on one node
Hello, after reinstalling one node (ceph06) from Backup the OSDs on that node do not show any Disk information with "ceph osd df tree": https://pastebin.com/raw/7zeAx6EC Any hint how i could fix this? Thanks, Mario ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
