> >> >> >>> >> >> > be
> >> >> >>> >> >> > "close"
> >> >> >>> >> >> > to the previ
gt; >> > Greetings,
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > Just a follow up on my original issue. =ceph pg repair ...=
>> >> >>> >> >> > fixed
>> >> >>> >> >>
gt;> > different.)
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Is this indicative of a problem on osd.5 or perhaps a clue into
> >>> >> >> > what's
> >>> >> >> > causing firefly to be so inconsistent?
> >
sd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 163 :
>>> >> >> > [ERR]
>>> >> >> > 3.c6
>>> >> >> > shard 2: soid 34dc35c6/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.000b/head//3
>>> >> >> > digest
>>> >> >> >
8068918
>> >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.936076 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 164 :
>> >> >> > [ERR]
>> >> >> > 3.c6
>> >> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects
>> >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.93
; >> >> > 3.c6
> >> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:38:53.990328 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 257 :
> [ERR]
> >> >> > 3.41
> >> >> >
.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.024c/head//3 digest
>> >> > 3224286363 != known digest 3409342281
>> >> > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701276 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 258 : [ERR]
>> >> > 3.41
>> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects
>> &g
gt; > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701281 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 259 : [ERR]
> >> > 3.41
> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Chahal, Sudip
> >> > wrote:
&
; > any insights:
>> >> >
>> >> > With three replicas, if checksum inconsistencies across replicas are
>> >> > found during deep-scrub then:
>> >> > a. does the majority win or is the primary always the winner
>> >> > an
istencies found during deep scrub - would you
> >> agree?
> >>
> >> Re: repair - do you mean the "repair" process during deep scrub - if
> yes,
> >> this is automatic - correct?
> >> Or
> >> Are you referring to the explicit ma
manually initiated repair commands?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Sudip
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Samuel Just [mailto:sam.j...@inktank.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:50 AM
>> To: Chahal, Sudip
>> Cc: Christian Eichelmann; cep
t; Or
> Are you referring to the explicit manually initiated repair commands?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Sudip
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Just [mailto:sam.j...@inktank.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:50 AM
> To: Chahal, Sudip
> Cc: Christian E
mann; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly
Repair I think will tend to choose the copy with the lowest osd number which is
not obviously corrupted. Even with three replicas, it does not do any kind of
voting at this time.
-Sam
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39
On Behalf Of
> Samuel Just
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Christian Eichelmann
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly
>
> Can you attach your ceph.conf for your osds?
> -Sam
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:01
014 10:16 AM
To: Christian Eichelmann
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly
Can you attach your ceph.conf for your osds?
-Sam
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Christian Eichelmann
wrote:
> I can also confirm that after upgrading to firefly both of our
"Travis
> Rhoden [trho...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2014 16:24
> An: Gregory Farnum
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Betreff: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly
>
> And actually just to follow-up, it does seem like there are some additional
>
Christian
Von: ceph-users [ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com]" im Auftrag von "Travis
Rhoden [trho...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2014 16:24
An: Gregory Farnum
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Betreff: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly
And actually just t
And actually just to follow-up, it does seem like there are some additional
smarts beyond just using the primary to overwrite the secondaries... Since
I captured md5 sums before and after the repair, I can say that in this
particular instance, the secondary copy was used to overwrite the primary.
I can also say that after a recent upgrade to Firefly, I have experienced
massive uptick in scrub errors. The cluster was on cuttlefish for about a
year, and had maybe one or two scrub errors. After upgrading to Firefly,
we've probably seen 3 to 4 dozen in the last month or so (was getting 2-3 a
It's not very intuitive or easy to look at right now (there are plans
from the recent developer summit to improve things), but the central
log should have output about exactly what objects are busted. You'll
then want to compare the copies manually to determine which ones are
good or bad, get the g
Greetings,
I upgraded to firefly last week and I suddenly received this error:
health HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors
ceph health detail shows the following:
HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors
pg 3.c6 is active+clean+inconsistent, acting [2,5]
1 scrub errors
The docs s
21 matches
Mail list logo
