Hi David Turner,
This is our ceph config under mon section , we have EC 4+1 and set the
failure domain as host and osd_min_down_reporters to 4 ( osds from 4
different host ) .
[mon]
mon_compact_on_start = True
mon_osd_down_out_interval = 86400
mon_osd_down_out_subtree_limit = host
mon_osd_min_dow
I've set up the rule according to the doc, but some of the PGs are still being
assigned to the same host.
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/crush-map-edits/
rule ssd-primary {
ruleset 5
type replicated
min_size 5
max_size
Add to the info, I have a slightly modified rule to take advantage of the new
storage class.
rule ssd-hybrid {
id 2
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take default class ssd
step chooseleaf firstn 1 type host
step emit
step
Hi !
We have now deleted all snapshots of the pool in question.
With "ceph pg dump" we can see that pg 5.9b has a SNAPTRIMQ_LEN of 27826.
All other PGs have 0.
It looks like this value does not decrease. LAST_SCRUB and
LAST_DEEP_SCRUB are both from 2018-04-24. Almost 1 month ago.
OSD stil
IO500 Call for Submission
Deadline: 23 June 2018 AoE
The IO500 is now accepting and encouraging submissions for the upcoming
IO500 list revealed at ISC 2018 in Frankfurt, Germany. The benchmark suite
is designed to be easy to run and the community has multiple active support
channels to help with
How many disks in each node? 68? If yes, then change it to 69. Also running
with ec 4+1 is bad for the same reason as running with size=2 min_size=1
which has been mentioned and discussed multiple times on the ML.
On Wed, May 23, 2018, 3:39 AM nokia ceph wrote:
> Hi David Turner,
>
> This is our
For #1 I guess this is a known issue (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20570)
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Massimo Sgaravatto <
massimo.sgarava...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have several questions on the radosgw - OpenStack integration.
>
> I was more or less able to set it (using a Luminous ceph cl
Hi,
I'm testing out ceph_vms vs a cephfs mount with a cifs export.
I currently have 3 active ceph mds servers to maximise throughput and
when I have configured a cephfs mount with a cifs export, I'm getting
a reasonable benchmark results.
However, when I tried some benchmarking with the ceph_v
yes it is 68 disks , and will this mon_osd_reporter_subtree_level = host
have any impact on mon_osd_ min_down_reporters ?
And related to min_size , yes there was many suggestions for us to move to
2 , due to storage efficiency concerns we still retain with 1 and trying to
convince customers to g
For #2, I think I found myself the answer. The admin can simply generate
the S3 keys for the user, e.g.:
radosgw-admin key create --key-type=s3 --gen-access-key --gen-secret
--uid="a22db12575694c9e9f8650dde73ef565\$a22db12575694c9e9f8650dde73ef565"
--rgw-realm=cloudtest
and then the user can acce
Hello Cephers,
Our Team currently is trying to replace hdfs to CEPH object storage.
However, there is a big problem which is "*hdfs dfs -put*" operation is
very slow.
I doubt session of RGW with hadoop system.
Because, only one RGW node works with hadoop, even through we have 4 RGWs.
There see
You can't mix HDDs and SSDs in a server if you want to use such a rule.
The new selection step after "emit" can't know what server was selected
previously.
Paul
2018-05-23 11:02 GMT+02:00 Horace :
> Add to the info, I have a slightly modified rule to take advantage of the
> new storage class.
>
http://www.openvstorage.com
https://www.openvstorage.org
I came across this the other day and am curious if anybody has run it in
front of their Ceph cluster. I'm looking at it for a clean-ish Ceph
integration with VMWare.
___
ceph-users mailing list
cep
Now that Mimic is fully branched out from master, ceph-disk is going
to be removed from master so that it is no longer available for the N
release (pull request to follow)
ceph-disk should be considered as "frozen" and deprecated for Mimic,
in favor of ceph-volume.
This means that if you are rely
On 23-5-2018 17:12, Alfredo Deza wrote:
> Now that Mimic is fully branched out from master, ceph-disk is going
> to be removed from master so that it is no longer available for the N
> release (pull request to follow)
> Willem, we don't have a way of directly supporting FreeBSD, I've
> suggested t
Thanks Yan! I did this for the bug ticket and missed these replies. I hope
I did it correctly. Here are the pastes of the dumps:
https://pastebin.com/kw4bZVZT -- primary
https://pastebin.com/sYZQx0ER -- secondary
they are not that long here is the output of one:
1. Thread 17 "mds_rank_progr
Alfredo,
Do we have the migration docs link from ceph-disk deployment to
ceph-volume? the current docs as i see lacks scenario migration, maybe
there is another link ?
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/#ceph-volume-simple
If it doesn't exist can we document, how a) ceph-disk wit
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Vasu Kulkarni wrote:
> Alfredo,
>
> Do we have the migration docs link from ceph-disk deployment to
> ceph-volume? the current docs as i see lacks scenario migration, maybe
> there is another link ?
> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/#ceph-volum
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 23-5-2018 17:12, Alfredo Deza wrote:
>> Now that Mimic is fully branched out from master, ceph-disk is going
>> to be removed from master so that it is no longer available for the N
>> release (pull request to follow)
>
>> Willem, w
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Vasu Kulkarni wrote:
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> Do we have the migration docs link from ceph-disk deployment to
>> ceph-volume? the current docs as i see lacks scenario migration, maybe
>> there is another link ?
>>
Dear Ceph Experts,
I have recently deleted a very big directory on my cephfs and a few minutes
after my dashboard start yelling :
Overall status: HEALTH_ERR
MDS_DAMAGE: 1 MDSs report damaged metadata
So I immediately log in my ceph admin node than do a ceph -s:
cluster:
id: 472
Hello
> 21 мая 2018 г., в 2:05, Sage Weil написал(а):
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2018, Mike A wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> In our cluster, we see a deadlock situation.
>> This is a standard cluster for an OpenStack without a RadosGW, we have a
>> standard block access pools and one for metrics from a gnocch
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Mike A wrote:
> Hello
>
> > 21 мая 2018 г., в 2:05, Sage Weil написал(а):
> >
> > On Sun, 20 May 2018, Mike A wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> In our cluster, we see a deadlock situation.
> >> This is a standard cluster for an OpenStack without a RadosGW, we have a
> >> standa
Hi,
the flush from the overlay cache for my ec-based cephfs is very very slow,
as are all operations on the cephfs. The flush accelerates when the mds is
stopped.
I think this is due to a large number of files that were deleted all at
once, but I'm not sure how to verify that. Are there any count
This week at the OpenStackSummit Vancouver I can hear people entertaining the
idea of running Ceph with replication factor of 2.
Karl Vietmeier of Intel suggested that we use 2x replication because Bluestore
comes with checksums.
https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/summit-schedule/ev
Hi,
About Bluestore, sure there are checksum, but are they fully used ?
Rumors said that on a replicated pool, during recovery, they are not
> My thoughts on the subject are that even though checksums do allow to find
> which replica is corrupt without having to figure which 2 out of 3 copies a
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Sean Sullivan wrote:
> Thanks Yan! I did this for the bug ticket and missed these replies. I hope I
> did it correctly. Here are the pastes of the dumps:
>
> https://pastebin.com/kw4bZVZT -- primary
> https://pastebin.com/sYZQx0ER -- secondary
>
>
> they are not t
Oh, it's not working as intended though the ssd-primary rule is officially
listed on ceph documentation. I should file a feature request or bugzilla for
it?
Regards,
Horace Ng
From: "Paul Emmerich"
To: "horace"
Cc: "ceph-users"
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:37:07 PM
Subject: Re: [c
Den tors 24 maj 2018 kl 00:20 skrev Jack :
> Hi,
>
> I have to say, this is a common yet worthless argument
> If I have 3000 OSD, using 2 or 3 replica will not change much : the
> probability of losing 2 devices is still "high"
> On the other hand, if I have a small cluster, less than a hundred OS
Hi,
I coudn't agree more, but just to re-emphasize what others already said:
the point of replica 3 is not to have extra safety for
(human|software|server) failures, but to have enough data around to
allow rebalancing the cluster when disks fail.
after a certain amount of disks in a cluste
30 matches
Mail list logo
