epends on your cluster load and replication settings.
Regards,
Christian
>
> So the question is:
>
> 2x or 3x ?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexandre
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communication
about $850, the 3700 can reliably store 7300TB while the 3500 is only
rated for 450TB.
You do the math. ^.^
Christian
> - Mail original -
>
> De: "Christian Balzer"
> À: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Mai 2014 04:57:51
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users]
-ran the below fio from a VM (old or new
client libraries made no difference) again.
The result, 2800 write IOPS instead of 3200 with Emperor.
So much for improved latency and whatnot...
Christian
On Wed, 14 May 2014 21:33:06 +0900 Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> On Wed, 14 May
simultaneously on both servers in the
> cluster. The performance was poor and had errors like this:
>
> Error in file: Found ?0? Expecting ?6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d? addr b660
> Error in file: Position 1060864
> Record # 259 Record size 4 kb
> where b660 loop 0
>
> Perfor
calability issue either.
Christian
> Pieter
>
>
> On 24 May 2014, at 06:43, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, 23 May 2014 15:41:23 -0300 Listas@Adminlinux wrote:
> >
> >> Hi !
> >>
> >> I have fail
Has anyone experience with these numbers of hosts or do people use
> "access" nodes in between which export a Ceph file system via NFS or
> similar systems?
>
> Cheers
>
> Carsten
>
> PS: As a first step, I think I'll go with 4-5 systems just to get a
p.com/> |
> > Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/centraldesktop> | Facebook
> > <http://www.facebook.com/CentralDesktop> |
> > LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=147417> | Blog
> > <http://cdblog.centraldesktop.com/>
> >
> > ___
l those bad OSDs and
> journals but apparently it doesn't resolve the problem.
>
> Is there any throttling settings which prevents the guest VMs to get the
> I/O write speed that it's entitled to?
>
> Looking forward to your reply, thank you.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
f RDB pools.
>
> So, the question is: which one would you prefer? Of course the best
> would be 1.) in terms of performance and reliability but we'd rather
> avoid that if possible due to budget constraints (48x Intel CPU is
> pricy). Or maybe do you have alternative suggestions
t give that data on their homepage, I would try to find
benchmarks that include what its latency and variances are, the DC 3700s
deliver their IOPS without any stutters.
Regards,
Christian
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-u
Hello,
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:52:00 +0200 Cedric Lemarchand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 03/06/2014 12:14, Christian Balzer a écrit :
> > A simple way to make 1) and 2) cheaper is to use AMD CPUs, they will do
> > just fine at half the price with these loads.
> > If
bination of all delays, in your case I'm sure it is
storage related.
Christian
> Looking forward to your reply, thank you.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon,
; drop to 150 MB/s -ish after I put back into the cluster.
> >
> > Could it be due to the latency? You mentioned that average latency of
> > 0.5 is pretty horrible. How can I find what contributes to the latency
> > and how to fix the problem? Really at loss now. :(
> >
> >
to do all that song and dance of
removing a failed OSD and bringing up a replacement. ^o^
One of the reasons I choose RAIDs as OSDs, especially since the Ceph
cluster in question is not local.
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Enginee
71496 kB used, 1619 GB / 1619 GB avail
> 192 active+degraded
>
> What is the logic behind this?? Can I use different hard
> drives successfully? If yes – how?
>
> Thank you for explanation,
>
> Vadim
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork
tting
replicated? (I never used snapshots, FWIW)
Either way how can I find out what is going on here?
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communication
.10:6789/0,cs2=10.44.xxx.11:6789/0,cs3=10.44.xxx.12:6789/0},
> election epoch 122, quorum 0,1,2 cs1,cs2,cs3
> osdmap e890: 6 osds: 6 up, 6 in
> pgmap v2379913: 448 pgs, 4 pools, 862 GB data, 217 kobjects
> 2576 GB used, 19732 GB / 22309 GB avail
>
provided
VM images.
Unfortunate discrepancy, will have to teach my subconscious to ignore it.
^o^
Cristian
> -Greg
> Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
&
e Debian init scripts? Can you help me?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dieter
>
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems E
21 52.80
> >>> sdd 0.00 0.000.00 435.00 0.00 4.29
> >>> 20.21 0.521.200.001.20 1.20 52.40
> >>>
> >>> (sda,b are the spinners sdc,d the ssds). Something is making the
> >>> journal work very ha
the OSD restart?
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com/
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.co
t;
> > On 22/06/14 19:02, Haomai Wang wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> Do you enable rbdcache? I test on my ssd cluster(only one ssd), it
> >> seemed ok.
> >>
> >> dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=65536 oflag=direct
> >>>
&g
reg
> Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This weekend I noticed that the deep scrubbing took a lot longer than
> > usual (long periods without a
w=102400/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> WRITE: io=409600KB, aggrb=9264KB/s, minb=9264KB/s, maxb=9264KB/s,
> mint=44213msec, maxt=44213msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> rbd2: ios=0/102499, merge=0/1818, ticks=0/5593828, in_queue=5599520,
>
er the documentation?
Regards,
Christian
>
> David Zafman
> Senior Developer
> http://www.inktank.com
> http://www.redhat.com
>
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:20:37 -0400 Gregory F
> ceph-users mailing list
> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
; cheers,
> erich
> _______
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com G
node.
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com/
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:25:49 + (UTC) Brian Lovett wrote:
> Christian Balzer writes:
>
>
> > So either make sure these pools really have a replication of 2 by
> > deleting and re-creating them or add a third storage node.
>
>
>
> I just executed "cep
guest os is Ubuntu 13.11
> >> ceph version is 0.80.1 (a38fe1169b6d2ac98b427334c12d7cf81f809b74)
> >>
> >> no performance improvements using the above cache settings, So what's
> >> wrong with me, please help, thanks!
> >>
> >> Jian
de that
> could slow this kind of use case down.
>
> >
> >
> >> In case 3, do you have multiple fio jobs going or just 1?
> > In all three cases, I am using one fio process with NUMJOBS=70
>
> Is RBD cache enabled? It's interesting that librbd is so much slower
it.
If nothing else, maybe I can stop other people from upgrading before they
cripple their cluster.
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:57:56 +0200 Xabier Elkano wrote:
> El 09/07/14 16:53, Christian Balzer escribió:
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 07:07:50 -0500 Mark Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/09/2014 06:52 AM, Xabier Elkano wrote:
> >>> El 09/07/14 13:10, Mark Nelson esc
d for thought.
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com/
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
bigger SSDs will help because the writes are spread across more
> cells. So a 240GB drive should last 2x a 120GB drive.
>
>
At that rate a DC3700 (instead of a bigger drive) will definitely be more
attractive when it comes to $/TBW.
A 240GB DC3500 is rated for 140TBW and will cost abou
ng to PCIe v3.
But you might have up to 3 HBAs/RAID cards and 2 network cards, so make
sure you and get this all into appropriate slots.
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://ww
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:24:26 -0500 Mark Nelson wrote:
> On 07/25/2014 02:54 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:31:34 +1000 Matt Harlum wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I’ve purchased a couple of 45Drives enclosures and would like to
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:14:59 -0500 Schweiss, Chip wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, if I read that link and the actual manual correctly, the most one
> > can hope to get from this is 48Gb/s (2 mini-SAS with 4 lanes eac
spects
than the single OSD nodes.
Now that node fails and you decide to let things rebalance as it can't be
repaired shortly. But you cluster was half full and now it will be 100%
full and become unusable (for writes).
So the moral of the story, deploy as much identical HW as possible.
C
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:49:46 +1000 Matt Harlum wrote:
>
> On 25 Jul 2014, at 5:54 pm, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:31:34 +1000 Matt Harlum wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I’ve purchased a couple of 45Drives enclosures a
ds and writes as a clue to provide
you with a double disk failure as well. ^o^
Christian
> ___ ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwo
are with
tools like atop.
While you've done pretty much everything to prevent that scenario from a
disk failure with the RAID10 and by keeping nodes from being set out by
whatever means you choose ("mon osd downout subtree limit = host" seems to
work, I just tested it), having a c
remove all the OSD's ?
>
There is documentation on how to remove OSDs in the manual deployment
section.
If you can (have no data on it), why not start from scratch?
Christian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > H
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com/
___
ceph-us
al email. It was the only way I would get the data moved. It
> didn't result in any data movement, just deletion. When I get new
> drives I'll turn that knob back up.
>
Ahahaha, there you go.
I actually changed my test cluster from 2 to 3 and was going to change it
back when the data
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:22:38 +0100 Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
> On 07/28/2014 08:49 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:20:43 -0400 Robert Fantini wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Christian,
> >>
> >> Let me supp
o of course we never count on one cluster to have our data. We
> > have 2 co-locations with backup going to often using zfs send receive
> > and or rsync .
> >
> > So for the 5 node cluster, how do we set it so 2 nodes up = OK ? Or
> > is that a bad idea?
> >
Re-added ML.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:38:37 +1000 Matt Harlum wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2014, at 1:45 am, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:49:46 +1000 Matt Harlum wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 25 Jul 2014, at 5:54 pm, Christian Balzer wrote:
&
alanced...
Christian
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:11:33 -0400 Robert Fantini wrote:
> >
> > > "target replication level of 3"
> > > " with a min of 1 across the node level
the data on that OSD.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> *German Anders
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
t to start my testing with close to ideal ceph settings . Then do a
> lot of testing of noout and other things.
> After I'm done I'll document what was done and post it a few places.
>
> I appreciate the suggestions you've sent .
>
> kind regards, rob fantini
>
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:50:02 -0400 German Anders wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> How are you? Thanks a lot for the answers, mine in red.
>
Most certainly not in red on my mail client...
> --- Original message ---
> >
> > Asunto: Re: [ceph-users] Using Ramdisk wi
200GB DC S3700 should be fine here, higher endurance, about 3 times the
speed of the DC 3500 120GB for sequential writes and 8 times for write
IOPS.
Christian
> Cheers,
> Josef
>
> On 30/07/14 17:12, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:50:02 -0400 German Anders
33.135593] [] path_openat+0x3d/0x620
> > > [ 33.147422] [] do_filp_open+0x3a/0x90
> > > [ 33.159250] [] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x35/0x1e0
> > > [ 33.172405] [] ? getname_flags+0x4f/0x190
> > > [ 33.185004] [] ? __alloc_fd+0xa7/0x130
> > &g
4000 at once.
>
---
Christian
> Thanks
>
> J
>
>
> On 31 July 2014 09:50, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > are you per-chance approaching the maximum amount of kernel mappings,
> > which is somewhat shy of 250 in any ke
r a cache pool unlike with a journal.
>From my understanding doing something like a backup of your actual pool
would write everything to the cache pool in that process.
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLi
"smartctl -a" output from one of these would be interesting.
> 6 x 128GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
> 1 x Dual port Broadcom NetXtreme II 5771x/578xx 10GbE
>
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global O
r cluster, what OS, Ceph version, replication factor?
What CPU, memory and network configuration?
A single 120GB SSD (which model?) as journal for 10 HDDs will be
definitely be the limiting factor when it comes to write speed, but should
handle the IOPS hopefully well enough.
Christian
--
Christi
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:11:39 -0400 Chris Kitzmiller wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:23:28 -0400 Chris Kitzmiller wrote:
> >
> >> I have 3 nodes each running a MON and 30 OSDs.
> >
> > Given the HW you li
ster d31586a5-6dd6-454e-8835-0d6d9e204612
> >>>>> health HEALTH_WARN 192 pgs incomplete; 192 pgs stuck
> >>>>> inactive; 192 pgs stuck unclean
> >>>>> monmap e3: 3 mons at
> >>>>>
> >>>>> {cep
; placement is deterministic, if 1 OSD is slow, over time just by random
> > chance all outstanding client operations will back up on it. Having
> > more concurrency gives you more wiggle room but may not ultimately
> > solve it.
> >
> > It's also possible that s
; > > > io='native'
> > > > >
> > > > > may give a bit of a boost too!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, that reminds me, also make sure to use the virtio bus instead
> > > > of ide or something else. That can m
ults of
> dump_historic_ops between OSDs ? I've noticed that in my case longest
> one are usually "waiting for subops from X, Y" and except for time there
> is no other information to correlate that for example op on osd.1 waited
> for subop on osd.5 and that subop on
t;
Well, read the above threads, but your use case looks very well suited for
RAID6 backed OSDs.
Something like 4 RAID6 with 10 HDDs and 4 global hot spares if I
understand your chassis correctly. One journal SSD per OSD.
You won't be doing more than 800 write IOPS per OSD, but backups means
l
vers backing up mostly web content (millions of small
> files).
>
So you're doing more of a rsync, copy operation than using an
actual backup software like bacula?
Having 200 servers scribble individual files , potentially with high
levels of parallelism is another story altogether compared
;
> Let me know !
> --
> David Moreau Simard
>
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
waway money.
> Plus I don't like the idea of mixing different hardware across OSD nodes.
>
Totally agreed on that, vastly differing hardware, especially when it
comes to performance, makes things ugly.
Christian
> J
>
> On 13 August 2014 14:06, Christian Balzer wrote:
&
Hello,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:38:05 -0500 John Morris wrote:
>
> On 08/13/2014 11:36 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:38:11 + David Moreau Simard wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
lot of your problems
and potential data loss issues.
If you can add HDDs (budget and space wise), consider running RAID1 for
OSDs for the time being and sleep easier with a replication of 2 until
you can add more nodes.
Christian
> >
> Ah, yeah, that explains the performanc
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:07:54 -0700 Craig Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:53:21 -0700 Craig Lewis wrote:
> >
> >> That's a low probability, given the number of
s bugs point of
> view?
>
No.
Akin to sticking your appendage(s) into a blender.
Ceph itself is a 0.x level software, using development releases outside a
test/tinkering cluster is very much not advised.
That's why distribution releases only have the stable versions.
Christian
>T
09.243.160.84:6789/0}, election
> epoch 2, quorum 0 ceph-mon01 osdmap e26641: 30 osds: 30 up, 30 in
> pgmap v56545: 1920 pgs, 3 pools, 0 bytes data, 0 objects
> 26558 MB used, 109 TB / 109 TB avail
> 83 stale+active+clean
> 160 active+de
t; 87 64
> (OSD# Neighbour#)
>
> So, if I am getting this right then at the end of the day __I think__
> all this essentially boils down (sans CRUSH) to the number of possible
> combinations (not permutations - order is irrelevant) of OSDs that can
> be chosen. Making these
nce to fail within the hour
> > following the failure of the first disk (assuming AFR
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annualized_failure_rate of every disk is
> > 8%, divided by the number of hours during a year == (0.08 / 8760) ~=
> > 1/100,000
> > * A give
ts (hope this
> >> scripting is right! ;-):
> >>
> >> $ for OSD in {0..95}; do echo -ne "$OSD\t"; grep "^10\." pg.dump | awk
> >> '{print $15}' | grep "\[${OSD},\|,${OSD}\]" | sed
> >> "s/\[$O
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:04:48 +0200 Loic Dachary wrote:
>
>
> On 27/08/2014 04:34, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:21:39 +0200 Loic Dachary wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Craig,
> >>
> >> I assume the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:29:20 -0400 Mike Dawson wrote:
> On 8/28/2014 12:23 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:04:48 +0200 Loic Dachary wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27/08/2014 04:34, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >>>
> >&
ribution.
Regards,
Christian
> Thanks!
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.c
Hello,
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 02:32:39 -0400 J David wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >> There are 1328 PG's in the pool, so about 110 per OSD.
> >>
> > And just to be pedantic, the PGP_NUM is the same?
>
> Ah, "ceph
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http
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 r
r, and it seemed works,
> but I'm not quite sure it's right in theory, so any comments will be
> appreciated.
> Thanks.
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http:/
cluster to its knees again.
So again, the simple answer is 3.
The real answer is "it depends" and you do want to test all kind of
failure modes (with a non-empty cluster) before going into production.
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
558 seconds
> old, received at 2014-09-04 11:56:05.766185:
> osd_op(client.9281282.0:55728038
> rbd_data.2d99f62eb141f2.3753 [stat,write 1941504~4096]
> 3.6625df97 e13901) v4 currently waiting for subops from [12,29]
> 2014-09-04 11:56:37.511803 osd.22 [WRN] slow request
want to look into cache pools (and dedicated SSD servers with
fast controllers and CPUs) in your test cluster and for the future.
Right now my impression is that there is quite a bit more polishing to be
done (retention of hot objects, etc) and there have been stability concerns
Hello,
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:09:11 +0800 Ding Dinghua wrote:
> Please see my comment below:
>
>
> 2014-09-04 21:33 GMT+08:00 Christian Balzer :
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:56:31 +0800 Ding Dinghua wrote:
> >
> > Asid
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:46:17 +0800 Ding Dinghua wrote:
> 2014-09-05 13:19 GMT+08:00 Christian Balzer :
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:09:11 +0800 Ding Dinghua wrote:
> >
> > > Please see my comment below:
> > >
&
from them (I might remember
> > wrong).
> >
> > If that is the case you might want to check in on osd 13 & 37 as well.
> >
> > With the cluster load and size you should not have this problem; I'm
> > pretty sure you're dealing with a rogue/fa
Hello Dan,
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:46:12 + Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> > On 05 Sep 2014, at 03:09, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:49:39 -0700 Craig Lewis wrote:
> >
>
n
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
Christian BalzerNetwork/Systems Engineer
ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion C
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:42:02 + Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
>
> > On 05 Sep 2014, at 11:04, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:46:12 + Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05 Sep 2014, at 03:09, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
GB used, 142 TB / 178 TB avail;
> >> 20114KB/s rd, 18543KB/s wr, 3248op/s 2014-09-05 10:45:09.627901 mon.0
> >> [INF] pgmap v12582799: 6860 pgs: 6860 active+clean; 12254 GB data,
> >> 36574 GB used, 142 TB / 178 TB avail; 14717KB/s rd, 15141KB/s wr,
> >> 2302op/s 201
/lists/ceph-users/msg04152.html
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/10021
And I'm not going to use BTRFS for mainly RBD backed VM images
(fragmentation city), never mind the other stability issues that crop up
here ever so often.
> September 6 2014 1:27 PM,
of at least 2
(risky!) or 3 (as per Firefly default), taking a single OSD out would of
course never bring the cluster down.
However taking an OSD out and/or adding a new one will cause data movement
that might impact your cluster's performance.
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian Balzer
only worked with restarting for a period of time to get
> >> the recovering process going. Can’t get passed the 21k object mark.
> >>
> >> I’m uncertain if the disk really is messing this up right now as
> >> well. So I’m not glad to start moving 300k objects around.
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:50:20 + Dan van der Ster wrote:
> September 6 2014 4:01 PM, "Christian Balzer" wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:07:27 + Dan van der Ster wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Christian,
> >>
> >> Let's keep debating until a d
Hello,
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 17:41:02 +0200 Josef Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06 Sep 2014, at 17:27, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 17:10:11 +0200 Josef Johansson wrote:
> >
> >> We manage to go t
ill read again.
>
URL?
Christian
> Thanks for the hints in looking at bad drives.
>
> Regards,
> Josef
>
> On 06 Sep 2014, at 17:41, Josef Johansson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06 Sep 2014, at 17:27, Christian Balzer wrote:
> &g
U resource in a software RAID case or require
a decent HW RAID controller.
Christian
> On Sat Sep 06 2014 at 8:37:56 AM Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:50:20 + Dan van der Ster wrote:
> >
> > > September 6 2014 4:01 PM, "Christian Balzer"
taking that beer now,
Skol.
Christian
> Regards,
> Josef
> > On 06 Sep 2014, at 18:17, Josef Johansson wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 06 Sep 2014, at 17:59, Christian Balzer wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
1 - 100 of 1226 matches
Mail list logo
