Thanks Greg, Joao and David,
The concept why odd no. of monitors are preferred is clear to me, but still I
am not clear about the working of Paxos algorithm:
#1. All changes in any data structure of monitor whether it is monitor map, OSD
map, PG map, MDS map or CRUSH map; are made through Paxo
On 08/30/2014 08:03 AM, pragya jain wrote:
Thanks Greg, Joao and David,
The concept why odd no. of monitors are preferred is clear to me, but
still I am not clear about the working of Paxos algorithm:
#1. All changes in any data structure of monitor whether it is monitor
map, OSD map, PG map, M
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>> Now, 1200 is not a power of two, but it makes sense. (12 x 100).
> Should have been 600 and then upped to 1024.
At the time, there was a reason why doing that did not work, but I
don't remember the specifics. All messages sent back in
While adding some nodes to a ceph emperor cluster using ceph-deploy,
the new nodes somehow wound up with 0.80.1, which I think is a Firefly
release.
The ceph version on existing nodes:
$ ceph --version
ceph version 0.72.2 (a913ded2ff138aefb8cb84d347d72164099cfd60)
The repository on the new nodes
Nigel mistakenly replied just to me, CC'ing the list.
On 08/30/2014 08:12 AM, Nigel Williams wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Joao Eduardo Luis
wrote:
But yeah, if you're going with 2 or 4, you'll be better off with 3 or 5. As
long as you don't go with 1 you should be okay.
On a rec
Hello,
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:24:00 -0400 J David wrote:
> While adding some nodes to a ceph emperor cluster using ceph-deploy,
> the new nodes somehow wound up with 0.80.1, which I think is a Firefly
> release.
>
This was asked and solved in the "ceph-deploy with --release (--stable)
for dumpli
Hello,
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:27:22 -0400 J David wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >> Now, 1200 is not a power of two, but it makes sense. (12 x 100).
> > Should have been 600 and then upped to 1024.
>
> At the time, there was a reason why doing that did not
On 29/08/14 22:17, Sebastien Han wrote:
@Mark thanks trying this :)
Unfortunately using nobarrier and another dedicated SSD for the journal (plus
your ceph setting) didn’t bring much, now I can reach 3,5K IOPS.
By any chance, would it be possible for you to test with a single OSD SSD?
Funny
