Hi Marc,
if you can exclude network problems, you can ignore this message.
The only time we observed something that might be similar to your problem was,
when a network connection was overloaded. Potential causes include
- broadcast storm
- the "too much cache memory" issues
https://www.suse.c
Den ons 22 maj 2019 kl 17:43 skrev Nikhil Mitra (nikmitra) <
nikmi...@cisco.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> What are the metadata pools in an RGW deployment that need to sit on the
> fastest medium to better the client experience from an access standpoint ?
>
> Also is there an easy way to migrate these pools
What are the metadata pools in an RGW deployment that need to sit on the
fastest medium to better the client experience from an access standpoint ?
Also is there an easy way to migrate these pools in a PROD scenario with
minimal to no-outage if possible ?
Just change crush rule to place defaul
Did I understand correctly: you have a crush tree with both ssd and
hdd devices, and you want to direct PGs to the ssds, until they reach
some fullness threshold, and only then start directing PGs to the
hdds?
I can't think of a crush rule alone to achieve that. But something you
could do is add a
Hi,
we have set the PGs to recover and now they are stuck in
active+recovery_wait+degraded and instructing them to deep-scrub does
not change anything. Hence, the rados report is empty. Is there a way to
stop the recovery wait to start the deep-scrub and get the output? I
guess the recovery_w
What's the full ceph status?
Normally recovery_wait just means that the relevant osd's are busy
recovering/backfilling another PG.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:53 AM Kevin Flöh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we have set the PGs to recover and now they are stuck in
> active+recovery_wait+degraded and instructi
Hi all, I have followed the Ceph documentation in order to update from
Mimic to Nautilus:
https://ceph.com/releases/v14-2-0-nautilus-released/
The process gone well but I have seen that two links with important
information doesn't work:
"v2 network protocol"
"Updating ceph.conf and mon_host"
h
I have been following this thread for a while, and thought I need to
have
"major ceph disaster" alert on the monitoring ;)
http://www.f1-outsourcing.eu/files/ceph-disaster.mp4
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Flöh [mailto:kevin.fl...@kit.edu]
Sent: donderdag 23 mei 2019 10:51
To:
This is the current status of ceph:
cluster:
id: 23e72372-0d44-4cad-b24f-3641b14b86f4
health: HEALTH_ERR
9/125481144 objects unfound (0.000%)
Degraded data redundancy: 9/497011417 objects degraded
(0.000%), 7 pgs degraded
9 stuck requests are bl
I think those osds (1, 11, 21, 32, ...) need a little kick to re-peer
their degraded PGs.
Open a window with `watch ceph -s`, then in another window slowly do
ceph osd down 1
# then wait a minute or so for that osd.1 to re-peer fully.
ceph osd down 11
...
Continue that for each o
Sorry for not waiting until it is published on the ceph website but,
anyone attended this talk? Is it production ready?
https://cephalocon2019.sched.com/event/M7j8
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.c
On 5/23/19 12:02 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
>
> Sorry for not waiting until it is published on the ceph website but,
> anyone attended this talk? Is it production ready?
>
Danny from Deutsche Telekom can answer this better, but no, it's not
production ready.
It seems it's more challenging to get
Hi Marc,
let me add Danny so he's aware of your request.
Kai
On 23.05.19 12:13, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
> On 5/23/19 12:02 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
>> Sorry for not waiting until it is published on the ceph website but,
>> anyone attended this talk? Is it production ready?
>>
> Danny from Deut
I have found that it's better to follow this links from the
documentation not from the Ceph Blog:
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/nautilus/releases/nautilus/
Here the links are working.
On 23/5/19 10:56, Andres Rojas Guerrero wrote:
> Hi all, I have followed the Ceph documentation in order to upd
thank you for this idea, it has improved the situation. Nevertheless,
there are still 2 PGs in recovery_wait. ceph -s gives me:
cluster:
id: 23e72372-0d44-4cad-b24f-3641b14b86f4
health: HEALTH_WARN
3/125481112 objects unfound (0.000%)
Degraded data redundanc
The PGs will stay active+recovery_wait+degraded until you solve the unfound
objects issue.
You can follow this doc to look at which objects are unfound[1] and if no
other recourse mark them lost
[1]
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/troubleshooting/troubleshooting-pg/#unfound-objects
.
On T
Hi there,
We have an old cluster that was built on Giant that we have maintained and
upgraded over time and are now running Mimic 13.2.5. The other day we
received a HEALTH_WARN about 1 large omap object in the pool '.usage' which
is our usage_log_pool defined in our radosgw zone.
I am trying to
Hi everyone,
We will be having Ceph Day Netherlands July 2nd!
https://ceph.com/cephdays/netherlands-2019/
The CFP will be ending June 3rd, so there is still time to get your
Ceph related content in front of the Ceph community ranging from all
levels of expertise:
https://zfrmz.com/E3ouYm0NiPF1b
Hi David and Justinas,
I'm interested with this old thread. Have it been solved? Would you mind to
share the solution and reference regarding to David statement of some
threads on the ML about RDMA?
Best regards,
> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 06:12:18 +
> From: David Turner
> To: Justinas LINGY
Ceph newbie question.
I have a disparity between the free space that my cephfs file system is showing
and what ceph df is showing.
As you can see below my cephfs file system says there is 9.5TB free however
ceph df says there is 186TB which with replication size 3 should equate to 62TB
free spa
in the config.
```"rgw_override_bucket_index_max_shards": "8",```. Should this be
increased?
Should be decreased to default `0`, I think.
Modern Ceph releases resolve large omaps automatically via bucket
dynamic resharding:
```
{
"option": {
"name": "rgw_dynamic_resharding",
21 matches
Mail list logo
