hello, I am running ceph v0.87 for one week, at this week,
many osd have marking down, but I run "ps -ef | grep osd", I can see
the osd process, the osd not really down, then, I check osd log,
I see many logs like "osd.XX from dead osd.YY,marking down",
if the 0.87 will check other osd process ?
On 04/11/14 03:02, Sage Weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Ah, I missed that thread. Sounds like three separate bugs:
- pool defaults not used for initial pools
- osd_mkfs_type not respected by ceph-disk
- osd_* settings not working
The last one is a real shock; I would ex
If you have osds that are close to full, you may be hitting 9626. I
pushed a branch based on v0.80.7 with the fix, wip-v0.80.7-9626.
-Sam
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Chad Seys wrote:
>>
>> No, it is a change, I just want to make sure I understand the
>> scenario. So you're reducing CRUSH wei
On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil wrote:
> In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS
> survey results looked like.
Thanks Sage, that was me!
> Here's the link:
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/
>
> In short, people want
>
> fsck
> mu
>
> No, it is a change, I just want to make sure I understand the
> scenario. So you're reducing CRUSH weights on full OSDs, and then
> *other* OSDs are crashing on these bad state machine events?
That is right. The other OSDs shutdown sometime later. (Not immediately.)
I really haven't tested
Can you reproduce with
debug osd = 20
debug filestore = 20
debug ms = 1
In the [osd] section of that osd's ceph.conf?
-Sam
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Ta Ba Tuan wrote:
> Hi Sage, Samuel & All,
>
> I upgraded to GAINT, but still appearing that errors |:
> I'm trying on deleting related obj
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chad Seys wrote:
> On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:50:05 you wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Chad Seys wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:22:47 you wrote:
>> >> Okay, assuming this is semi-predictable, can you start up one of the
>> >> OSDs tha
On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:50:05 you wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Chad Seys wrote:
> > On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:22:47 you wrote:
> >> Okay, assuming this is semi-predictable, can you start up one of the
> >> OSDs that is going to fail with "debug osd = 20", "debug filestor
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Chad Seys wrote:
> On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:22:47 you wrote:
>> Okay, assuming this is semi-predictable, can you start up one of the
>> OSDs that is going to fail with "debug osd = 20", "debug filestore =
>> 20", and "debug ms = 1" in the config file and the
On Monday, November 03, 2014 13:22:47 you wrote:
> Okay, assuming this is semi-predictable, can you start up one of the
> OSDs that is going to fail with "debug osd = 20", "debug filestore =
> 20", and "debug ms = 1" in the config file and then put the OSD log
> somewhere accessible after it's cras
Okay, assuming this is semi-predictable, can you start up one of the
OSDs that is going to fail with "debug osd = 20", "debug filestore =
20", and "debug ms = 1" in the config file and then put the OSD log
somewhere accessible after it's crashed?
Can you also verify that all of your monitors are r
> There's a "ceph osd metadata" command, but i don't recall if it's in
> Firefly or only giant. :)
It's in firefly. Thanks, very handy.
All the OSDs are running 0.80.7 at the moment.
What next?
Thanks again,
Chad.
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-us
[ Re-adding the list. ]
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Chad Seys wrote:
>
>> > Next I executed
>> >
>> > 'ceph osd crush tunables optimal'
>> >
>> > to upgrade CRUSH mapping.
>>
>> Okay...you know that's a data movement command, right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> So you should expect it to impact operati
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Narendra Trivedi (natrived)
wrote:
> Thanks. I think the limit is 100 by default and it can be disabled. As far
> as I understand, there are no object limit on radosgw side of things only
> from Swift end (i.e. 5GB) ….right? In short, if someone tries to upload a
>
Thanks for the comments guys
I'm going to deploy it from scratch and this time ill capture every price
of debug information. Hopefully this will give me the reasons why ,,
thanks
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Colle wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Why are you not fond of ceph-deploy?
>
> Ian
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Thomas Lemarchand
wrote:
> Update :
>
> /var/log/kern.log.1:Oct 31 17:19:17 c-mon kernel: [17289149.746084]
> [21787] 0 21780 492110 185044 920 240143 0
> ceph-mon
> /var/log/kern.log.1:Oct 31 17:19:17 c-mon kernel: [17289149.746115]
> [131
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Chad Seys wrote:
> Hi All,
>I upgraded from emperor to firefly. Initial upgrade went smoothly and all
> placement groups were active+clean .
> Next I executed
> 'ceph osd crush tunables optimal'
> to upgrade CRUSH mapping.
Okay...you know that's a data mov
Thanks. I think the limit is 100 by default and it can be disabled. As far as
I understand, there are no object limit on radosgw side of things only from
Swift end (i.e. 5GB) right? In short, if someone tries to upload a 1TB of
object onto Swift + RadosGW, it has to be truncated at the Swif
P.S. The OSDs interacted with some 3.14 krbd clients before I realized that
kernel version was too old for the firefly CRUSH map.
Chad.
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Hi All,
I upgraded from emperor to firefly. Initial upgrade went smoothly and all
placement groups were active+clean .
Next I executed
'ceph osd crush tunables optimal'
to upgrade CRUSH mapping.
Now I keep having OSDs go down or have requests blocked for long periods of
time.
I start
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:02:08 -0800 (PST) Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > On 03/11/14 14:56, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:07:23 -0800 (PST) Sage Weil wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > > > > c) But wait, you sp
In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS
survey results looked like. Here's the link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/
In short, people want
fsck
multimds
snapshots
quotas
sage
___
ceph-users
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 03/11/14 14:56, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:07:23 -0800 (PST) Sage Weil wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > > > c) But wait, you specified a pool size of 2 in your OSD section! Tough
> > > > luck, beca
On 11/01/2014 05:10 AM, Patrick McGarry wrote:
> As I understand it SUSE does their own builds of things. Just on
> cursory examination it looks like the following repo uses Firefly:
>
> https://susestudio.com/a/HVbCUu/master-ceph
This is Jan Kalcic's ceph appliance, using packages from:
http:
Update :
/var/log/kern.log.1:Oct 31 17:19:17 c-mon kernel: [17289149.746084]
[21787] 0 21780 492110 185044 920 240143 0
ceph-mon
/var/log/kern.log.1:Oct 31 17:19:17 c-mon kernel: [17289149.746115]
[13136] 0 1313652172 1753 590 0
ceph
Hi Udo,
I try that also but failed. Here are the steps that I made, the
strange thing is that when run the "prepare" commad, it finished ok,
but.. if i take a look into the log files, i found this also:
ceph@cephbkdeploy01:~/desp-bkp-cluster$ ceph-deploy --overwrite-conf
osd prepare ceph
Update : this error is linked to a crashed mon. It crashed during the
weekend. I try to understand why. I never had a mon crash before Giant.
--
Thomas Lemarchand
Cloud Solutions SAS - Responsable des systèmes d'information
On lun., 2014-11-03 at 11:08 +0100, Thomas Lemarchand wrote:
> Hello a
Can someone please help out. I am stuck
Regards,
Sakhi Hadebe
Engineer: South African National Research Network (SANReN)Competency Area,
Meraka, CSIR
Tel: +27 12 841 2308
Fax: +27 12 841 4223
Cell: +27 71 331 9622
Email: shad...@csir.co.za
>>> Sakhi Hadebe 10/31/2014 1:28 PM >>>
Hi
Hello all,
I upgraded my cluster to Giant. Everything is working well, but on one
mon I get a strange error when I do "rados df" :
root@a-mon:~# rados df
2014-11-03 10:57:15.313618 7ff2434f0700 0 -- :/1009400 >>
10.94.67.202:6789/0 pipe(0xe37890 sd=3 :0 s=1 pgs=0 cs=0 l=1
c=0xe37b20).fault
pool
>>http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/kmod-rpm-rhel7beta-x86_64-basic/ref/rhel7/x86_64/
>>
>>
>>But that hasn't been updated since July.
Great ! Thanks!
(I think it's build from https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/tree/rhel7 ?)
- Mail original -
De: "Dan van der Ster"
À: "Alexandre DERUMI
>>Not that I know of. krbd *fixes* are getting backported to stable
>>kernels regularly though.
Thanks. (I was thinking more about new features support like coming discard
support in 3.18 for example)
- Mail original -
De: "Ilya Dryomov"
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER"
Cc: "ceph-users"
There's this one:
http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/kmod-rpm-rhel7beta-x86_64-basic/ref/rhel7/x86_64/
But that hasn't been updated since July.
Cheers, Dan
On Mon Nov 03 2014 at 5:35:23 AM Alexandre DERUMIER
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to known if a repository is available for rhel7/centos7 with
>
Hello,
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:01:32 -0500 (EST) Ian Colle wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Why are you not fond of ceph-deploy?
>
In short, this very thread.
Ceph-deploy hides a number of things from the users that are pretty vital
for a working ceph cluster and insufficiently or not at all documented
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:31:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
>
> Dear ceph users,
>
>
> we are managing ceph clusters since 1 year now. Our setup is typically
> made of Supermicro servers with OSD sata drives and journal on SSD.
>
> Those SSD are all failing one after the other after one ye
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to known if a repository is available for rhel7/centos7 with
> last krbd module backported ?
>
>
> I known that such module is available in ceph enterprise repos, but is it
> available for non subscribers ?
Not tha
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:31 AM, wrote:
>
> root@CONTROLLER-4F:~# rbd -p volumes flatten
> f3e81ea3-1d5b-487a-a55e-53efff604d54_disk
> *** Caught signal (Segmentation fault) **
> in thread 7fe99984f700
> ceph version 0.79 (4c2d73a5095f527c3a2168deb5fa54b3c8991a6e)
> 1: (()+0x22a4f) [0x7fe9a1745
Hello Greg,
I saw that the site of the previous link of the logs uses a very short expiring
time so I uploaded it to another one:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/gikiy7cqs42cllt/ceph-mds.th1-mon001.log.tar.gz
Thanks,
Jasper
Van: gregory.far...@inktan
37 matches
Mail list logo
