Could someone help me understand why it's a bad idea to set min_size of erasure-coded pools to k?
>From what I've read, the argument for k+1 is that if min_size is k and you lose an OSD during recovery after a failure of m OSDs, data will become unavailable. But how does setting min_size to k+1 help? If m=2, if you experience a double failure followed by another failure during recovery you still lost 3 OSDs and therefore your data because the pool wasn't set up to handle 3 concurrent failures, and the value of min_size is irrelevant. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8008 mentions inability to peer if min_size = k, but I don't understand why. Does that mean that if min_size=k and I lose m OSDs, and then an OSD is restarted during recovery, PGs will not peer even after the restarted OSD comes back online? Vlad _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
