[ceph-users] Re: Degraded PGs on EC pool when marking an OSD out

2024-01-24 Thread Frank Schilder
ock Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 9:45 AM To: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Degraded PGs on EC pool when marking an OSD out Hi, this topic pops up every now and then, and although I don't have definitive proof for my assumptions I still stand with them. ;-) As the docs [2] already

[ceph-users] Re: Degraded PGs on EC pool when marking an OSD out

2024-01-24 Thread Eugen Block
Hi, this topic pops up every now and then, and although I don't have definitive proof for my assumptions I still stand with them. ;-) As the docs [2] already state, it's expected that PGs become degraded after some sort of failure (setting an OSD "out" falls into that category IMO): It

[ceph-users] Re: Degraded PGs on EC pool when marking an OSD out

2024-01-22 Thread Hector Martin
On 2024/01/22 19:06, Frank Schilder wrote: > You seem to have a problem with your crush rule(s): > > 14.3d ... [18,17,16,3,1,0,NONE,NONE,12] > > If you really just took out 1 OSD, having 2xNONE in the acting set indicates > that your crush rule can't find valid mappings. You might need to tune

[ceph-users] Re: Degraded PGs on EC pool when marking an OSD out

2024-01-22 Thread Frank Schilder
You seem to have a problem with your crush rule(s): 14.3d ... [18,17,16,3,1,0,NONE,NONE,12] If you really just took out 1 OSD, having 2xNONE in the acting set indicates that your crush rule can't find valid mappings. You might need to tune crush tunables: