[ceph-users] Squeeze packages for 0.94.2
Hello, it seems that there are no Debian Squeeze packages in the repository for the current Hammer version. Is this an oversight or is there another reason those are not provided? Sebastian ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Squeeze packages for 0.94.2
July 30 2015 11:05 AM, "Christian Balzer" wrote: > Is there any reason you can't use Wheezy or Jessie? Our cluster is running on trusty however nearly all our clients are running on squeeze and can not be updated for compatibility reasons in the short term. Packages of older Hammer versions were provided so we assumed future releases of Hammer would be provided for Debian 6. Sebastian ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] Best upgrade strategy
Hi, we are running a cluster with 6 storage nodes(72 osds) and 3 monitors. The osds and and monitors are running on Ubuntu 14.04 and with ceph 0.94.5. We want to upgrade the cluster to Jewel and at the same time the OS to Ubuntu 16.04. What would be the best way to this? First to upgrade the OS and then ceph to 0.94.7 followed by 10.2.1. Or should we first upgrade Ceph and then Ubuntu? Or maybe doing it all at once? Regards Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Best upgrade strategy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/06/2016 03:26 PM, David Turner wrote: > Best practices in general say to do them separate. If something > doesn't work... Is it the new kernel, some package that are > different on 16.04, Jewel, etc. The less things in that list the > easier it is to track down the issue and fix it. > > As far as order, hammer 0.94.5 wasn't built with 16.04 in mind. > Jewel lists both as compatibilities. I would say upgrade to jewel, > make sure things are stable, and then upgrade to 16.04. It might > even be wise to add a third upgrade step of running the kernel > you'll be using on 16.04 before you upgrade to 16.04 to separate > the 2 out. Ok first the upgrade to jewel, then the os. Got it. Would you recommend first upgrading to 0.94.7 or can we directly go to jewel, according to the realease notes a direct upgrade should be possible. > > The biggest question though is why you're upgrading Ubuntu. New > software does not mean better. The 3.16 kernel was the last kernel > before an xfs file system regression was added to the kernel and > hadn't been fixed yet in 4.2. So Ceph storage nodes running osds on > xfs would be better on the much older kernel. 16.04 is using the 4.4 kernel do you know if it is fixed in there? The reason for updating to 16.04 is that we dont want to use the odd system out(upstart vs systemd), we've been burned by ceph before suddenly not publishing packages for a system although it was still supported on paper so we rather use something more "mainstream". Regards Sebastian > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Sebastian Köhler >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> we are running a cluster with 6 storage nodes(72 osds) and 3 >> monitors. The osds and and monitors are running on Ubuntu 14.04 >> and with ceph 0.94.5. We want to upgrade the cluster to Jewel and >> at the same time the OS to Ubuntu 16.04. What would be the best >> way to this? First to upgrade the OS and then ceph to 0.94.7 >> followed by 10.2.1. Or should we first upgrade Ceph and then >> Ubuntu? Or maybe doing it all at once? >> >> Regards Sebastian >> >> ___ ceph-users >> mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXVaDeAAoJEFsCNCyUAJg4n34P/0YcjwrrSBL03abKCpcVLfLN LtEaRg8fH/e+NFbfPRGY1mulAuSyvyyls83TWPgWEz28UAyXN7qltwdojzjO+f2U UHVPGcRjTJ2VNnPHhTO53pq9fjmP6VLx7xDV7t3p96aXixd3tVyG7n6plcoCcY9+ sPzePvlh7RWO6mDDDlWTx/hPIgVQmCDIc7LOW1uihjgiWn0bNzBMDsalinHyHteH 65be4bFZGcsGaYKksfLGp1PIjZ1/pnPtONiOcOjjLGWx0fEyM2TKLs4hEvuVD9gT Yeg4qOv2/9GIWo2awvu9Fuxc8WO9FV90mgLck/AQ265uGKI4ezsfrqdx9p5FUThN QRLjtmpml7LAPos5BbDlwoouBOHNKtZi7LWt5bNwAHn4o9VxkshHEtbyq7yfh+HB hrCKLeyXh7jv1Er1o2mq6AxU9gTQfa5GuVM1b5KZ1WNjtkkoqr117h1rd/ztVYfW 8SX55f/Rh7FdcMiuGfaUdzbUSJrXDnzSpXvJOt6/GYFxm8Cq1RyeXq9F/OSdGm8s JksK6mhB6bXm3tibGwX0NKg5P1PexsyP8D6QknjnpyaL68TVdh1k1fNVAuIyLnhT CnlsjhfZ0uogK9qW4iI3h5jXdZlOpY4OEoLIwGBmxpG5vFFHOYacGsXJzbIVof5g ZElw5gqLIQRBs7uHAo6e =qwZA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] Replica count
Hello, is it possible to reduce the replica count of a pool that already contains data? If it is possible how much load will a change in the replica size cause? I am guessing it will do a rebalance. Thanks Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Replica count
Thanks for the help, is there any information available on how much data movement will happen when I reduce the size from 3 to 2? The min_size is already at 1. On 10/23/2016 05:43 PM, David Turner wrote: > Make sure to also adjust your min_size. Having those be the same number > can cause issues if and when you lose an osd from your cluster. > > Like Wido said, you can change the size of a replica pool at any time, > it will just cause a lot of data to move. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 23, 2016, at 4:30 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >> >>> Op 23 oktober 2016 om 10:04 schreef Sebastian Köhler : >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> is it possible to reduce the replica count of a pool that already >>> contains data? If it is possible how much load will a change in the >>> replica size cause? I am guessing it will do a rebalance. >>> >> >> Yes, just change the 'size' parameter of the pool. Data will rebalance > indeed if you increase the number. >> >> Wido >> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> > > > > <https://storagecraft.com>David Turner | Cloud Operations Engineer | > StorageCraft Technology Corporation <https://storagecraft.com> > 380 Data Drive Suite 300 | Draper | Utah | 84020 > Office: 801.871.2760| Mobile: 385.224.2943 > > > > If you are not the intended recipient of this message or received it > erroneously, please notify the sender and delete it, together with any > attachments, and be advised that any dissemination or copying of this > message is prohibited. > > > > ___ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> ___ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] rbd: I/O Errors in low memory situations
0*8kB 0*16kB 1*32kB (U) 2*64kB (U) 1*128kB (U) 1*256kB (U) 0*512kB 1*1024kB (U) 1*2048kB (R) 3*4096kB (M) = 15904kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078351] Node 1 DMA32: 15791*4kB (UE) 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 1*4096kB (R) = 67260kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078357] Node 1 Normal: 89352*4kB (U) 0*8kB 0*16kB 1*32kB (R) 1*64kB (R) 1*128kB (R) 1*256kB (R) 0*512kB 1*1024kB (R) 1*2048kB (R) 0*4096kB = 360960kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078366] Node 0 hugepages_total=0 hugepages_free=0 hugepages_surp=0 hugepages_size=2048kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078368] Node 1 hugepages_total=0 hugepages_free=0 hugepages_surp=0 hugepages_size=2048kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078369] 1687591 total pagecache pages Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078370] 0 pages in swap cache Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078372] Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0 Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078372] Free swap = 23390604kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078373] Total swap = 23390604kB Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078374] 3143224 pages RAM Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078375] 0 pages HighMem/MovableOnly Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078376] 22529 pages reserved Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078377] 0 pages hwpoisoned Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078380] rbd: rbd1: write 1000 at 0 result -12 Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078382] end_request: I/O error, dev rbd1, sector 0 Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078449] Buffer I/O error on device rbd1, logical block 0 Feb 17 22:52:25 six kernel: [2401866.078515] lost page write due to I/O error on rbd1 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Sebastian Köhler Alfahosting GmbH Ankerstraße 3b 06108 Halle Germany Steuernummer: 110/115/41765 HRB : 214733 AG Stendal Ust-IdNr.: DE232969203 Geschäftsführer: Moritz Bartsch Email: i...@alfahosting.de Internet: www.alfahosting.de TEL +49 (0345) 279 58 304 FAX +49 (0345) 680 04 99 ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
