It looks much better, at least for Ubuntu focal, thanks!
/Z
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 03:48, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> We redeployed all packages again.
>
> Please confirm that the issue is resolved.
>
> Thank you for your help and patience!
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 3:44 PM Zakhar Kirpichenko
>
Thanks for the follow up!
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:49 PM Adiga, Anantha wrote:
>
> Hi Venky,
>
>
>
> “peer-bootstrap import” is working fine now. It was port 3300 blocked by
> firewall.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Anantha
>
>
>
> From: Adiga, Anantha
> Sent: Monday, Augus
Here are the yaml files I used to create the NFS and ingress services:
nfs-ingress.yaml
service_type: ingress
service_id: nfs.xcpnfs
placement:
count: 2
spec:
backend_service: nfs.xcpnfs
frontend_port: 2049
monitor_port: 9000
virtual_ip: 172.16.172.199/24
nfs.yaml
service_type: nfs
s
We redeployed all packages again.
Please confirm that the issue is resolved.
Thank you for your help and patience!
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 3:44 PM Zakhar Kirpichenko wrote:
>
> Now the release email comes and the repositories are still missing packages.
> What a mess.
>
> /Z
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug
If there isn't any documentation for this yet, can anyone tell me:
* How do I inspect/change my NFS/haproxy/keepalived configuration?
* What is it supposed to look like? Does someone have a working example?
Thank you.
On 31/08/2023 9:36 am, Thorne Lawler wrote:
Sorry everyone,
Is there any
Sorry everyone,
Is there any more detailed documentation on the high availability NFS
functionality in current Ceph?
This is a pretty serious sticking point.
Thank you.
On 30/08/2023 9:33 am, Thorne Lawler wrote:
Fellow cephalopods,
I'm trying to get quick, seamless NFS failover happening
Now the release email comes and the repositories are still missing
packages. What a mess.
/Z
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:27, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> 16.2.14 has not been released yet.
>
> Please don't do any upgrades before we send an announcement email.
>
> TIA
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 8:45 A
We're happy to announce the 14th backport release in the Pacific series.
https://ceph.io/en/news/blog/2023/v16-2-14-pacific-released/
Notable Changes
---
* CEPHFS: After recovering a Ceph File System post following the
disaster recovery procedure, the recovered files under lost+foun
Hey users,
To follow up on my previous email, on behalf of the Ceph team, we apologize
for any confusion about pre-released packages. We are working on
streamlining the release process to avoid this next time.
- Laura
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:14 PM Paul Mezzanini wrote:
> -> "At the minimum,
Petr,
My name is Zac Dover. I'm the upstream docs guy for the Ceph Foundation.
I will begin the process of correcting this part of the documentation. I will
begin by reviewing the section "Creating a Secondary Zone".
My schedule is full until Sunday, but I will raise an issue in tracker.ceph.co
-> "At the minimum, publishing the versioned repos at $repourl/debian-16.2.14
but not cutting the symlink over for $repourl/debian-pacific until “ready”
seems like a very easy and useful release process improvement to prevent these
specific issues going forward."
This should be standard proced
Hi,
We are still in progress creating the release. Any artifacts are not yet
officially released. We will send the usual blog post and email when
everything's ready.
- Laura
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:16 PM Zakhar Kirpichenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please note that some packages have been pushed for
Hi Venky,
“peer-bootstrap import” is working fine now. It was port 3300 blocked by
firewall.
Thank you for your help.
Regards,
Anantha
From: Adiga, Anantha
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:29 PM
To: Venky Shankar ; ceph-users@ceph.io
Subject: RE: [ceph-users] Re: cephfs snapshot mirror peer_boots
Hi,
Please note that some packages have been pushed for Ubuntu focal as well,
but the repo is incomplete. I think it would be good if such things could
be avoided in the future.
/Z
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:27, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> 16.2.14 has not been released yet.
>
> Please don't do any
Update: There was a networking issue between the sites, after fixing it , the
issue reported below did not occur.
Thank you,
Anantha
From: Adiga, Anantha
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 2:40 PM
To: ceph-users@ceph.io
Subject: radosgw mulsite multi zone configuration: current period realm name
Hello,
My goal is to setup multisite RGW with 2 separate CEPH clusters in separate
datacenters, where RGW data are being replicated. I created a lab for this
purpose in both locations (with latest reef ceph installed using cephadm) and
tried to follow this guide: https://docs.ceph.com/en/reef/r
Hello,
Finish v18.2.0 upgrade on LRC? It seems to be running v18.1.3
not much of a difference in code commits
news on teuthology jobs hanging?
cephfs issues because of network troubles
Its resolved by Patrick
User council discussion follow-up
Detailed info on this pad: https:
This is more the sentiment that I was hoping to convey.
Sure, I have my finger on the pulse of the mailing list and the packages coming
down the pipe, but assuming that everyone does and/or will is not a safe
assumption.
At the minimum, publishing the versioned repos at $repourl/debian-16.2.14 b
Hi,
On 8/30/23 18:26, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
16.2.14 has not been released yet.
Please don't do any upgrades before we send an announcement email.
Then stop pushing packets before the announcement. This is not the first
time this problem occurred. And given your answer I'm afraid it won't be
16.2.14 has not been released yet.
Please don't do any upgrades before we send an announcement email.
TIA
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 8:45 AM Reed Dier wrote:
>
> It looks like 16.2.14 was released, but it looks like in an incomplete way in
> the debian repo?
>
> I first noticed it because my nigh
It looks like 16.2.14 was released, but it looks like in an incomplete way in
the debian repo?
I first noticed it because my nightly mirror snapshot picked it up, and showed
that the majority of packages were removed, and only a handful had a new
version.
> focal-ceph-pacific 230829 to 230830
>
Hi,
It looks like Igor is right, it does appear to be a corruption.
ls /var/lib/ceph/252fcf9a-b169-11ed-87be-3cecef623f33/osd.665/
ceph_fsid config fsid keyring ready require_osd_release type unit.configured
unit.created unit.image unit.meta unit.poststop unit.run unit.stop whoami
head -c 4096
Hi,
there have been multiple discussions on this list without any
satisfying solution for all possible configurations. One of the
changes [1] made in Pacific was to use hostname instead of IP, but it
only uses the shortname (you can check the "hostname" in 'ceph service
dump' output. But
Hi, just a few days ago I replied to a thread [2] with some
explanations for destroy, delete and purge.
So if you "destroy" an OSD it is meant to be replaced, reusing the ID.
A failed drive may not be responsive at all so an automated wipe might
fail as well. If the db/wal is located on a d
maybe the default value is ok, I think set it to 1 is too aggressive.
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
25 matches
Mail list logo
