Hi Steffen,
WIth respect to your post as mentioned in the below link
http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-August/003370.html
I am facing the same issue, here is my error log from api.log
"2013-12-10 02:47:36.156 32509 TRACE glance.api.v1.upload_utils File
"/usr/lib/python2
Hi Vikrant
Can you share ceph auth list and your glance-api.conf file output.
What are your plans with respect to configuration , what you want to achieve.
Many Thanks
Karan Singh
- Original Message -
From: "Vikrant Verma"
To: thorh...@iti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de
Cc: ceph-users@li
Ceph can be quite hard on CPU at times, so I would avoid this unless you have
lots of CPU cycles to spare as well.
\C
- Original Message -
From: "Blair Bethwaite"
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December, 2013 10:04:01 AM
Subject: [ceph-users] Anybody doing Ceph fo
> I've been running similar calculations recently. I've been using this
> tool from Inktank to calculate RADOS reliabilities with different
> assumptions:
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/models/reliability
>
> But I've also had similar questions about RBD (or any multi-part files
Hi,
Today my ceph cluster suffer of such problem:
#v+
root@dfs-s1:/var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-1# df -h | grep ceph-1
/dev/sdc1 559G 438G 122G 79% /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-1
#v-
Disk report 122GB free space. Looks ok but:
#v+
root@dfs-s1:/var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-1# touch aaa
touch: cannot touch
A general rule of thumb for separate journal devices is to use 1 SSD for
every 4 OSDs. Since SSDs have no seek penalty, 4 partitions are fine.
Going much above the 1:4 ratio can saturate the SSD.
On your SAS journal device, by creating 9 partitions, you're forcing
head seeks for every journa
On 10/12/13 03:34, Alfredo Deza wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Mark Kirkwood
wrote:
On 08/12/13 12:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I wonder if it might be worth adding a check at the start of either
ceph-deploy to look for binaries we are gonna need.
...growl: either ceph-deploy *or ceph-d
