I'm now running the three relevant OSDs with that patch. (Recompiled,
replaced /usr/lib64/rados-classes/libcls_log.so with the new version,
then restarted the osds).
It's working quite well, trimming 10 entries at a time instead of
1000, and no more timeouts.
Do you think it would be worth decrea
> Keep in mind that 1.6TB P4600 is going to last about as long as your 400GB
> P3700, so if wear-out is a concern, don't put more stress on them.
>
I've been looking at the 2T ones, but it's about the same as the 400G P3700
> Also the P4600 is only slightly faster in writes than the P3700, so tha
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Peter Maloney
wrote:
> On 06/14/17 11:59, Dan van der Ster wrote:
>> Dear ceph users,
>>
>> Today we had O(100) slow requests which were caused by deep-scrubbing
>> of the metadata log:
>>
>> 2017-06-14 11:07:55.373184 osd.155
>> [2001:1458:301:24::100:d]:6837/3817
I set mon_data to “/home/ceph/software/ceph/var/lib/ceph/mon”, and its owner
has always been “ceph” since we were running Hammer.
And I also tried to set the permission to “777”, it also didn’t work.
发件人: Linh Vu [mailto:v...@unimelb.edu.au]
发送时间: 2017年6月22日 14:26
收件人: 许雪寒; ceph-users@lists.cep
Hi,
One of the benefits of PCIe NVMe is that it does not take a disk slot,
resulting in a higher density. For example a 6048R-E1CR36N with 3x PCIe
NVMe yields 36 OSDs per servers (12 OSD per NVMe) where it yields 30 OSDs
per server if using SATA SSDs (6 OSDs per SSD).
Since you say that you used
On 22-6-2017 03:59, Christian Balzer wrote:
>> Agreed. On the topic of journals and double bandwidth, am I correct in
>> thinking that btrfs (as insane as it may be) does not require double
>> bandwidth like xfs? Furthermore with bluestore being close to stable, will
>> my architecture need to chan
Hi,
Does CephFS support SELinux?
I have this issue with OpenShift (with SELinux) + CephFS:
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift-archives/users/2017-June/msg00116.html
Best regards,
Stéphane
--
Stéphane Klein
blog: http://stephane-klein.info
cv : http://cv.stephane-klein.info
Twitter: ht
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Stéphane Klein
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does CephFS support SELinux?
>
> I have this issue with OpenShift (with SELinux) + CephFS:
> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift-archives/users/2017-June/msg00116.html
We do test running CephFS server and client bits on mac
2017-06-22 11:48 GMT+02:00 John Spray :
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Stéphane Klein
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does CephFS support SELinux?
> >
> > I have this issue with OpenShift (with SELinux) + CephFS:
> > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift-archives/users/
> 2017-June/msg00116.h
Looks like I’ve now got a consistent repro scenario, please find the gory
details here http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20380
Thanks!
On 20/06/17, 2:04 PM, "Pavan Rallabhandi" wrote:
Hi Orit,
No, we do not use multi-site.
Thanks,
-Pavan.
From: Orit Wasserman
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Saul [mailto:adrian.s...@tpgtelecom.com.au]
> Sent: 19 June 2017 06:54
> To: n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Alex Gorbachev'
> Cc: 'ceph-users'
> Subject: RE: [ceph-users] VMware + CEPH Integration
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Have you experienced any problems with timeou
Cristian and everyone else have expertly responded to the SSD capabilities,
pros, and cons so I'll ignore that. I believe you were saying that it was
risky to swap out your existing journals to a new journal device. That is
actually a very simple operation that can be scripted to only take minutes
I wouldn't see this as problematic at all. As long as you're watching the
disk utilizations and durability, those are the only factors that would
eventually tell you that they are busy enough.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, 1:36 AM Ashley Merrick wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Currently have a pool of SSD's runni
Did you previously edit the init scripts to look in your custom location?
Those could have been overwritten. As was mentioned, Jewel changed what
user the daemon runs as, but you said that you tested running the daemon
manually under the ceph user? Was this without sudo? It used to run as root
unde
Looking at the sources, the config values were in Hammer but not Jewel.
for jounral config i recommend
journal_queue_max_ops
journal_queue_max_bytes
be removed from the docs:
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/configuration/journal-ref/
Also for the added filestore throttling params:
filestor
On 06/22/2017 04:00 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
I'm now running the three relevant OSDs with that patch. (Recompiled,
replaced /usr/lib64/rados-classes/libcls_log.so with the new version,
then restarted the osds).
It's working quite well, trimming 10 entries at a time instead of
1000, and no mo
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Casey Bodley wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2017 04:00 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
>>
>> I'm now running the three relevant OSDs with that patch. (Recompiled,
>> replaced /usr/lib64/rados-classes/libcls_log.so with the new version,
>> then restarted the osds).
>>
>> It's work
On 06/22/2017 10:40 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Casey Bodley wrote:
On 06/22/2017 04:00 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
I'm now running the three relevant OSDs with that patch. (Recompiled,
replaced /usr/lib64/rados-classes/libcls_log.so with the new version,
then
After some testing (doing heavy IO on a rdb-based VM with
hung_task_timeout_secs=1 while manually requesting deep-scrubs on the
underlying pgs (as determined via rados ls->osdmaptool), I don’t think
scrubbing is the cause.
At least, I can’t make it happen this way… although I can’t *always* mak
Hi everybody,
I want to squeeze all the performance of CEPH (we are using jewel 10.2.7).
We are testing a testing environment with 2 nodes having the same
configuration:
* CentOS 7.3
* 24 CPUs (12 for real in hyper threading)
* 32Gb of RAM
* 2x 100Gbit/s ethernet cards
* 2x OS dedicated i
Hi Ceph users,
We are currently using the Ceph kernel client module (krbd) in our
deployment and we were looking to determine if there are ways by which we
can obtain perf counters, log dumps, etc from such a deployment. Has
anybody been able to obtain such stats?
It looks like the libvirt interf
Hello Massimiliano,
Based on the configuration below, it appears you have 8 SSDs total (2
nodes with 4 SSDs each)?
I'm going to assume you have 3x replication and are you using filestore,
so in reality you are writing 3 copies and doing full data journaling
for each copy, for 6x writes per c
Hello,
Also as Mark put, one minute your testing bandwidth capacity, next minute your
testing disk capacity.
No way is a small set of SSD’s going to be able to max your current bandwidth,
even if you removed the CEPH / Journal overhead. I would say the speeds you are
getting are what you shoul
Generally you can measure your bottleneck via a tool like
atop/collectl/sysstat and see how busy (ie %busy, %util ) your
resources are: cpu/disks/net.
As was pointed out, in your case you will most probably have maxed out
on your disks. But the above tools should help as you grow and tune your
c
On 22/06/2017 19:19, Massimiliano Cuttini wrote:
> We are already expecting the following bottlenecks:
>
> * [ SATA speed x n° disks ] = 24Gbit/s
> * [ Networks speed x n° bonded cards ] = 200Gbit/s
6Gbps SATA does not mean you can read 6Gbps from that device
__
David,
SUCCESS!! Thank you so much!
I rebuilt the node because I could not install Jewel over the remnants of
Kraken.
So, while I did install Jewel I am not convinced that was the solution. I did
something that I had not tried under the Kraken attempts that solved the
problem.
For future_me h
Hi All
I am recently testing a new ceph cluster with SSD as journal.
ceph -v
ceph version 10.2.7
cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.4 Beta (Maipo)
I followed
http://ceph.com/geen-categorie/ceph-recover-osds-after-ssd-journal-failure/
to replace the journal drive. (
27 matches
Mail list logo
