I will look into that, but:
IS there a rule of thumb to determine the optimal setting for
osd disk threads
and
osd op threads
?
TIA
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:22 PM Paul Emmerich wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:57 AM tim taler wrote:
>>
>> We experience absurd s
Hi all,
we have a 5 node ceph cluster with 44 OSDs
where all nodes also serve as virtualization hosts,
running about 22 virtual machines with all in all about 75 rbd s
(158 including snapshots).
We experience absurd slow i/o in the VMs and I suspect
our thread settings in ceph.conf to be one of t
Hi all,
we have a 5 node ceph cluster with 44 OSDs
where all nodes also serve as virtualization hosts,
running about 22 virtual machines with all in all about 75 rbd s
(158 including snapshots).
We experience absurd slow i/o in the VMs and I suspect
our thread settings in ceph.conf to be one of t
Hi all,
how are your experiences with different disk sizes in one pool
regarding the overall performance?
I hope someone could shed some light on the following scenario:
Let's say I mix an equal amount of 2TB and 8TB disks in one pool,
with a crush map that tries to fill all disks to the same perc
Well connecting an rbd to two servers would be like mapping a block
device from a storage array onto two different hosts,
that's is possible and (was) done.
(it would be much more difficult though to connect a single physical
harddisk to two computers)
The point is that as mentioned above you woul
t replicated?
(the cluster is luminous upgraded from jewel so we use filestore on
xfs not bluestore)
TIA
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Stefan Kooman wrote:
> Quoting tim taler (robur...@gmail.com):
>> And I'm still puzzled about the implication of the cluster size on the
>> a
> In size=2 losing any 2 discs on different hosts would probably cause data to
> be unavailable / lost, as the pg copys are randomly distribbuted across the
> osds. Chances are, that you can find a pg which's acting group is the two
> failed osd (you lost all your replicas)
okay I see, getting cle
s... if you
> lose all but 1 copy of your data... do you really want to make changes to
> it? I've also noticed that the majority of clusters on the ML that have
> irreparably lost data were running with size=2 min_size=1.
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:12 AM tim taler wrote:
>
aven't seen anything about that in the
docus (so far?)
> -Always keeping that much free space, so the cluster could lose a host and
> still has space to repair (calculating with the repair max usage % setting).
thnx again!
yupp that was helpfull
> I hope this helps, and please keep
Hi
I'm new to ceph but have to honor to look after a cluster that I haven't
set up by myself.
Rushing to the ceph docs and having a first glimpse on our cluster I start
worrying about our setup,
so I need some advice and guidance here.
The set up is:
3 machines, each running a ceph-monitor.
all of
10 matches
Mail list logo
