Hi,guys.
right now,I face a problem in my openstack+ceph.
some vm can not start and some occur blue screen。
the output of ceph -s say the cluster is OK.
So I using following command to check the volume first:
rbd ls -p volumes|while read line;do rbd info $line -p volumes ;done
then quickly I ge
Dear Ceph Developers!
First of all i would tell you i love this software! I am still a beginner
using Ceph, but i like it very much, and i see the potential in it, so i
would use it in the future too, if i can.
A little background before i tell my problem:
I have a smaller bunch of servers, 5 for
Deployment method: ceph-deploy
Centos 7.2, systemctl
Infernalis. This also happened when I was testing @ Jewell.
I am restarting ( or stop/start ) the ceph old processes ( after they die
or something ), with:
systemctl stop|start|restart ceph.target
Is there another way that it is more appropri
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Wade Holler wrote:
> Does anyone else have any suggestions here? I am increasingly concerned
> about my config if other folks aren't seeing this.
>
> I could change to a manual crushmap but otherwise have no need to.
What did you use to deploy ceph? What init sy
Does anyone else have any suggestions here? I am increasingly concerned
about my config if other folks aren't seeing this.
I could change to a manual crushmap but otherwise have no need to.
I emailed the Ceph-dev list but have not had a response yet.
Best Regards
Wade
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:1
I'm not pretty sure about how it works internally.
But if 0.0 works fine to you, that's good.
Rgds,
Shinobu
- Original Message -
From: "Rafael Lopez"
To: "Shinobu Kinjo"
Cc: "Andy Allan" , ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 7:20:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] dou
I removed some osds from a host yesterday using the reweight method and it
worked well. There was only one rebalance and then I could perform the rest
of the documented removal steps immediately with no further recovery. I
reweighted to 0.0.
Shinobu, can you explain why you have found 0.2 is bette
Based on my research, 0.2 is better than 0.0.
Probably it depends though.
> ceph osd crush reweight osd.X 0.0
Rgds,
Shinobu
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Allan"
To: "Rafael Lopez"
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:08:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] doub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/7024
-
Robert LeBlanc
PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Currently set as DNM. :( I guess the author has not updated the PR as
requested. If needed, I can probably submit a new PR as we would
really like to see this in the next Hammer release. I just need to
know if I need to get involved. I don't want to
Hi Greg,
thank you for your time !
In my situation, i overwrite the old ID with the new one. I dont know
how. I thought thats impossible, but a running cluster with 4 mon's
suddenly just changed its ID.
So the cluster has now the new ID. As i can see, i cant change the ID
running some command.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Oliver Dzombic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> fighting to add a new mon it somehow happend by mistake, that a new
> cluster id got generated.
>
> So the output of "ceph -s" show a new cluster id.
>
> But the osd/mon are still running on the old cluster id.
>
> Changing the osd/mo
Rafael,
Yes, the cluster still rebalances twice when removing a failed osd. An osd that
is marked out for any reason but still exists in the crush map gets its
placement groups remapped to different osds until it comes back in, at which
point those pgs are remapped back. When an osd is removed
On 1/10/16, 2:26 PM, "ceph-users on behalf of Stuart Longland"
wrote:
>On 05/01/16 07:52, Stuart Longland wrote:
>>> I ran into this same issue, and found that a reboot ended up setting
>>>the
>>> > ownership correctly. If you look at
>>>/lib/udev/rules.d/95-ceph-osd.rules
>>> > you'll see the m
Looks like it has been done
https://github.com/zhouyuan/ceph/commit/f352b8b908e8788d053cbe15fa3632b226a6758d
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert LeBlanc [mailto:rob...@leblancnet.us]
> Sent: 08 January 2016 18:23
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Wade Holler ; hnuzhoulin
> ; Ceph-User
> Subject: R
On 11 January 2016 at 02:10, Rafael Lopez wrote:
> @Steve, even when you remove due to failing, have you noticed that the
> cluster rebalances twice using the documented steps? You may not if you don't
> wait for the initial recovery after 'ceph osd out'. If you do 'ceph osd out'
> and immedia
On 16-01-11 04:10, Rafael Lopez wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys.
@Steve, even when you remove due to failing, have you noticed that the
cluster rebalances twice using the documented steps? You may not if
you don't wait for the initial recovery after 'ceph osd out'. If you
do 'ceph osd out'
Just in case anyone in future comes up with the same question:
I ran the following Test-case:
3 identical Debian VM's. 4GB Ram, 4 vCores. Virtio for vDisks. On the same
Pool. vDisks mounted at /home/test
1x 120GB
12x 10GB JBOD via LVM
12x 10GB Raid 0
Then separately i wrote 100GB of Data us
The parameter passed to create_bucket was wrong. The right way:
// Create bucket 'mmm-1' in placement target 'fast-placement'
// 'bj' is my region name, 'fast-placement' is my placement target name.
bucket = conn.create_bucket('mmm-1', location='*bj:fast-placement*')
// Create bucket 'mmm-2' in
19 matches
Mail list logo
