Interesting - the state went back to 'UNINITIAL' eventually, possibly
because the first run never finished. Will see if it ever completes during
a nightly run.
-BEn
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
> I initiated a manual lifecycle cleanup with:
>
> radosgw-admin lc process
>
>
The status will be a WARN in this case.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:01 PM Adam Carheden wrote:
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> I think the sort version is "guaranteed": CEPH will always either store
> 'size' copies of your data or set heath to a WARN and/or ERR state to
> let you know that it can'
Thanks for your replies.
I think the sort version is "guaranteed": CEPH will always either store
'size' copies of your data or set heath to a WARN and/or ERR state to
let you know that it can't. I think that's probably the most desirable
answer.
--
Adam Carheden
On 04/14/2017 09:51 AM, David Tu
Hi Michael, David,
Actually, we did start with a lot of work (and then a lot of work :-))
and with the help of a RHCS consultant (an Inktank pioneer :-)) during a
5 days on-site Jumpstart.
With his precious help, we deployed our production cluster, set the
right options in ceph.conf, the rig
If you have Replica size 3, your failure domain is host, and you have 3
servers... you will NEVER have 2 copies of the data on 1 server. If you
weight your OSDs poorly on one of your servers, then one of the drives will
fill up to the full ratio in its config and stop receiving writes. You
should
The PG just counts as degraded in both scenarios, but if you look at the
objects in the degraded PGs (visible in ceph status) some of them are
degraded objects and others are misplaced objects. Degraded objects have
less than your replica size of copies, like what happens when you lose an
OSD. Wh
Is redundancy across failure domains guaranteed or best effort?
Note: The best answer to the questions below is obviously to avoid the
situation by properly weight drives and not approaching the full ratio.
I'm just curious how CEPH works.
Hypothetical situation:
Say you have 1 pool of size=3 and
Is there a difference between the degraded states triggered by an OSD
failure vs a crushmap change?
When an OSD fails the cluster is obviously degraded in the sense that
you have fewer copies of your data than the pool size mandates.
But when you change the crush map, say by adding an OSD, ceph a
ah right: _during_ the actual removal, you mean. :-)
clear now.
mj
On 04/13/2017 05:50 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote:
Le 13/04/2017 à 17:47, mj a écrit :
Hi,
On 04/13/2017 04:53 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote:
We use rbd snapshots on Firefly (and Hammer now) and I didn't see any
measurable impact on per
