Hello,
In my "Sanity check" thread I postulated yesterday that to get the same
redundancy and resilience for disk failures (excluding other factors) as
my proposed setup (2 nodes, 2x 11 3TB HDs RAID6 per node, 2
global hotspares, thus 4 OSDs) the "Ceph way" one would need need something
like 6 no
Hello,
although I don't know much about this topic, I believe that ceph erasure
encoding will probably solve a lot of these issues with some speed
tradeoff. With erasure encoding the replicated data eats way less disk
capacity, so you could use a higher replication factor with a lower disk
usage t
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:53:58 +0100 Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> although I don't know much about this topic, I believe that ceph erasure
> encoding will probably solve a lot of these issues with some speed
> tradeoff. With erasure encoding the replicated data eats way less
> Yeah, I saw erasure encoding mentioned a little while ago, but that's
> likely not to be around by the time I'm going to deploy things.
> Nevermind that super bleeding edge isn't my style when it comes to
> production systems. ^o^
> And at something like 600 disks, that would still have to be a
Yehuda,
Do you have any futher detail on this radosgw bug?
Does it only apply to emperor?
Joel van Velden
On 19/12/2013 5:09 a.m., Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
We were actually able to find the culprit yesterday. While the nginx
workaround might be a valid solution (really depends on who nginx
reads fr
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 17:39:54
Christian Balzer napisał(a):
>
> Hello,
>
> In my "Sanity check" thread I postulated yesterday that to get the
> same redundancy and resilience for disk failures (excluding other
> factors) as my proposed setup (2 nodes, 2x 11 3TB HDs RAID6 per node,
> 2 global
On 12/19/2013 09:39 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
Hello,
In my "Sanity check" thread I postulated yesterday that to get the same
redundancy and resilience for disk failures (excluding other factors) as
my proposed setup (2 nodes, 2x 11 3TB HDs RAID6 per node, 2
global hotspares, thus 4 OSDs) the
Working now. Removed escape char from the api_key,
Thank you so much for your suggestions.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> I see python 2.6 So I assume this is a RHEL6 distro. I've not been able to
> use mod-fcgid in any setup on RHEL6 variants. I'd reccomend you use
Hello,
I would like to install ceph on a Netgear ReadyNAS 102.
It is a debian wheezy based.
I have tried to add ceph repository but nas is "armel" architecture and I
see you provide a repo for "armhf" architecture.
How can I solve this problem?
Thanks,
Mario
_
Hi folks,
I'm doing a test for Rados bench now. The cluster is deployed by
ceph-deploy
Ceph version: Emperor
FS : XFS
I created a pool test3 with size1 :
pool 13 'test3' rep size 1 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash rjenkins
pg_num 2000 pgp_num 2000 last_change 166 owner 0
The Rados bench
Hi,
I'm testing CEPH with the RBD/QEMU driver through libvirt to store my VM
images on. Installation and configuration all went very well with the
ceph-deploy tool. I have set up authx authentication in libvirt and that
works like a charm too.
However, when coming to performance I have big iss
2013/12/17 Gandalf Corvotempesta :
> There isnt' anything about how to define a cluster network for OSD.
> I don't know how to set a cluster address to each OSD.
No help about this? I would like to set a cluster-address for each OSD
Is this possible with ceph-deploy ?
_
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In my "Sanity check" thread I postulated yesterday that to get the same
> redundancy and resilience for disk failures (excluding other factors) as
> my proposed setup (2 nodes, 2x 11 3TB HDs RAID6 per node, 2
> global hotspar
Three things come to my mind when looking at your setup/results:
1)The number of pg's. According to the documentation it should be:
(number of OSD * 100 ) / number of replicas.
Maybe playing with the number a bit would yield better results.
2) Although I am NOT using SSD's as journals, I am u
Hello,
When I try to deploy a new monitor on a new node with ceph-deploy, I have this
error:
—
eph@p1:~$ ceph-deploy mon create s4.13h.com
[ceph_deploy.cli][INFO ] Invoked (1.3.3): /usr/bin/ceph-deploy mon create
s4.13h.com
[ceph_deploy.mon][DEBUG ] Deploying mon, cluster ceph hosts s4.13h.c
>-Original Message-
>From: ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com [mailto:ceph-users-
>boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Gregory Farnum
>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 7:20 AM
>To: Christian Balzer
>Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Failure probability with largish d
Hi Don,
ceph.conf is readable by all users
Thanks
Song
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Don Talton (dotalton)
wrote:
> Check that cinder has access to read your ceph.conf file. I’ve had to
> 644 mine.
>
>
>
> *From:* ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com [mailto:
> ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.
Ceph FS is really cool and exciting! It makes a lot of sense for us to
leverage it.
Is there any established goal / timelines for using Ceph FS for production
use? Are specific individual support contracts available if Ceph FS is to
be used in production?
Thanks!
On 19 Dec 2013, at 16:43, Gruher, Joseph R wrote:
> It seems like this calculation ignores that in a large Ceph cluster with
> triple replication having three drive failures doesn't automatically
> guarantee data loss (unlike a RAID6 array)?
not true with RBD images, which are potentially stri
On 12/19/2013 08:39 PM, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
On 19 Dec 2013, at 16:43, Gruher, Joseph R wrote:
It seems like this calculation ignores that in a large Ceph cluster with triple
replication having three drive failures doesn't automatically guarantee data
loss (unlike a RAID6 array)?
On 12/19/2013 08:07 PM, Abhijeet Nakhwa wrote:
Ceph FS is really cool and exciting! It makes a lot of sense for us to
leverage it.
Is there any established goal / timelines for using Ceph FS for
production use? Are specific individual support contracts available if
Ceph FS is to be used in prod
Am 19.12.2013 um 20:39 schrieb Wolfgang Hennerbichler :
> On 19 Dec 2013, at 16:43, Gruher, Joseph R wrote:
>
>> It seems like this calculation ignores that in a large Ceph cluster with
>> triple replication having three drive failures doesn't automatically
>> guarantee data loss (unlike a RAID
Hi all,
I've been working in some ceph-deploy automation and think I've stumbled on an
interesting behavior. I create a new cluster, and specify 3 machines. If all 3
are not and unable to be ssh'd into with the account I created for ceph-deploy,
then the mon create process will fail and the clu
How do find or create a user that can use the admin operations for the
object gateway?
The manual says "Some operations require that the user holds special
administrative capabilities."
But I can't find if there is a pre setup user with these, or how to create
one myself.
On 12/16/2013 02:42 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
Hello,
Hi Christian!
new to Ceph, not new to replicated storage.
Simple test cluster with 2 identical nodes running Debian Jessie, thus ceph
0.48. And yes, I very much prefer a distro supported package.
I know you'd like to use the distro pa
What impact does rebooting nodes in a ceph cluster have on the health of
the ceph cluster? Can it trigger rebalancing activities that then have
to be undone once the node comes back up?
I have a 4 node ceph cluster each node has 11 osds. There is a single
pool with redundant storage.
If it take
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, John-Paul Robinson wrote:
> What impact does rebooting nodes in a ceph cluster have on the health of
> the ceph cluster? Can it trigger rebalancing activities that then have
> to be undone once the node comes back up?
>
> I have a 4 node ceph cluster each node has 11 osds. T
On 20/12/13 13:51, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, John-Paul Robinson wrote:
>> What impact does rebooting nodes in a ceph cluster have on the health of
>> the ceph cluster? Can it trigger rebalancing activities that then have
>> to be undone once the node comes back up?
>>
>> I have a 4 n
So is it recommended to adjust the rebalance timeout to align with the time to
reboot individual nodes?
I didn't see this in my pass through the ops manual but maybe I'm not looking
in the right place.
Thanks,
~jpr
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:51 PM, "Sage Weil" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 20
Hello Mark,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:18:01 -0600 Mark Nelson wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 02:42 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
>
> Hi Christian!
>
> >
> > new to Ceph, not new to replicated storage.
> > Simple test cluster with 2 identical nodes running Debian Jessie, thus
> > ceph 0.48. A
> Do you have any futher detail on this radosgw bug?
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/0f36eddbe7e745665a634a16bf3bf35a3d0ac424
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/0b9dc0e5890237368ba3dc34cb029010cb0b67fd
> Does it only apply to emperor?
The bug is present in dumpling too.
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:12:13 +0100 Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 17:39:54
> Christian Balzer napisał(a):
[snip]
>
>
> > So am I completely off my wagon here?
> > How do people deal with this when potentially deploying hundreds of
> > disks in a single cluster/p
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:42:15 +0100 Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 09:39 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
[snip]
> >
>
> I'd suggest to use different vendors for the disks, so that means you'll
> probably be mixing Seagate and Western Digital in such a setup.
>
That's funny, becaus
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:43:16 + Gruher, Joseph R wrote:
[snip]
>
> It seems like this calculation ignores that in a large Ceph cluster with
> triple replication having three drive failures doesn't automatically
> guarantee data loss (unlike a RAID6 array)? If your data is triple
> re
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:01:47 +0100 Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 08:39 PM, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
> > On 19 Dec 2013, at 16:43, Gruher, Joseph R
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It seems like this calculation ignores that in a large Ceph cluster
> >> with triple replication having three dri
I just realized my email is not clear. If the first mon is up and the
additional initials are not, then the process fails.
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com [mailto:ceph-users-
> boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Don Talton (dotalton)
> Sent: Thursday, Dece
"mon initial members" is a race prevention mechanism whose purpose is
to prevent your monitors from forming separate quorums when they're
brought up by automated software provisioning systems (by not allowing
monitors to form a quorum unless everybody in the list is a member).
If you want to add ot
On 12/19/2013 2:02 PM, Blair Nilsson wrote:
> How do find or create a user that can use the admin operations for the
> object gateway?
>
> The manual says "Some operations require that the user holds special
> administrative capabilities."
>
> But I can't find if there is a pre setup user with the
On 12/19/2013 04:00 PM, Peder Jansson wrote:
Hi,
I'm testing CEPH with the RBD/QEMU driver through libvirt to store my VM
images on. Installation and configuration all went very well with the
ceph-deploy tool. I have set up authx authentication in libvirt and that
works like a charm too.
Howeve
On 12/18/2013 09:39 PM, Tim Bishop wrote:
Hi all,
I'm investigating and planning a new Ceph cluster starting with 6
nodes with currently planned growth to 12 nodes over a few years. Each
node will probably contain 4 OSDs, maybe 6.
The area I'm currently investigating is how to configure the
net
40 matches
Mail list logo
