Re: [ceph-users] Erasure code failure

2017-10-19 Thread David Turner
Unless your min_size is set to 3, then you are not hitting the bug in the tracker you linked. Most likely you are running with a min_size of 2 which means that bug is not relevant to your cluster. Upload this if you wouldn't mind. `ceph osd pool get {pool_name} all` On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:03

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure code failure

2017-10-19 Thread Jorge Pinilla López
Yes, I am trying it over luminous. Well the bug has been going for 8 month and it hasn't been merged yet. Idk if that is whats preventing me to make it work. Tomorrow I will try to prove it again. El 19/10/2017 a las 23:00, David Turner escribió: > Running a cluster on various versions of Hammer

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure code failure

2017-10-19 Thread David Turner
Running a cluster on various versions of Hammer and Jewel I haven't had any problems. I haven't upgraded to Luminous quite yet, but I'd be surprised if there is that severe of a regression especially since they did so many improvements to Erasure Coding. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:59 PM Jorge Pini

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure code failure

2017-10-19 Thread Jorge Pinilla López
Well I was trying it some days ago and it didn't work for me. maybe because of this: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18749 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/17619 I don't know if now it's actually working El 19/10/2017 a las 22:55, David Turner escribió: > In a 3 node cluster with EC k=2 m=1,

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure code failure

2017-10-19 Thread David Turner
In a 3 node cluster with EC k=2 m=1, you can turn off one of the nodes and the cluster will still operate normally. If you lose a disk during this state or another server goes offline, then you lose access to your data. But assuming that you bring up the third node and let it finish backfilling/re