That is a good idea. However, a previous rebalancing processes has brought performance of our Guest VMs to a slow drag.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Jean-Charles Lopez <jelo...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Russell, > > as you have 4 servers, assuming you are not doing EC pools, just stop all > the OSDs on the second questionable server, mark the OSDs on that server as > out, let the cluster rebalance and when all PGs are active+clean just > replay the test. > > All IOs should then go only to the other 3 servers. > > JC > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 13:49, Russell Glaue <rgl...@cait.org> wrote: > > No, I have not ruled out the disk controller and backplane making the > disks slower. > Is there a way I could test that theory, other than swapping out hardware? > -RG > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:44 PM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Have you ruled out the disk controller and backplane in the server >> running slower? >> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:42 PM Russell Glaue <rgl...@cait.org> wrote: >> >>> I ran the test on the Ceph pool, and ran atop on all 4 storage servers, >>> as suggested. >>> >>> Out of the 4 servers: >>> 3 of them performed with 17% to 30% disk %busy, and 11% CPU wait. >>> Momentarily spiking up to 50% on one server, and 80% on another >>> The 2nd newest server was almost averaging 90% disk %busy and 150% CPU >>> wait. And more than momentarily spiking to 101% disk busy and 250% CPU wait. >>> For this 2nd newest server, this was the statistics for about 8 of 9 >>> disks, with the 9th disk not far behind the others. >>> >>> I cannot believe all 9 disks are bad >>> They are the same disks as the newest 1st server, Crucial_CT960M500SSD1, >>> and same exact server hardware too. >>> They were purchased at the same time in the same purchase order and >>> arrived at the same time. >>> So I cannot believe I just happened to put 9 bad disks in one server, >>> and 9 good ones in the other. >>> >>> I know I have Ceph configured exactly the same on all servers >>> And I am sure I have the hardware settings configured exactly the same >>> on the 1st and 2nd servers. >>> So if I were someone else, I would say it maybe is bad hardware on the >>> 2nd server. >>> But the 2nd server is running very well without any hint of a problem. >>> >>> Any other ideas or suggestions? >>> >>> -RG >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Maged Mokhtar <mmokh...@petasan.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> just run the same 32 threaded rados test as you did before and this >>>> time run atop while the test is running looking for %busy of cpu/disks. It >>>> should give an idea if there is a bottleneck in them. >>>> >>>> On 2017-10-18 21:35, Russell Glaue wrote: >>>> >>>> I cannot run the write test reviewed at the ceph-how-to-test-if-your-s >>>> sd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device blog. The tests write directly to >>>> the raw disk device. >>>> Reading an infile (created with urandom) on one SSD, writing the >>>> outfile to another osd, yields about 17MB/s. >>>> But Isn't this write speed limited by the speed in which in the dd >>>> infile can be read? >>>> And I assume the best test should be run with no other load. >>>> >>>> How does one run the rados bench "as stress"? >>>> >>>> -RG >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Maged Mokhtar <mmokh...@petasan.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> measuring resource load as outlined earlier will show if the drives >>>>> are performing well or not. Also how many osds do you have ? >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-10-18 19:26, Russell Glaue wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The SSD drives are Crucial M500 >>>>> A Ceph user did some benchmarks and found it had good performance >>>>> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/ceph-bad-performance-in- >>>>> qemu-guests.21551/ >>>>> >>>>> However, a user comment from 3 years ago on the blog post you linked >>>>> to says to avoid the Crucial M500 >>>>> >>>>> Yet, this performance posting tells that the Crucial M500 is good. >>>>> https://inside.servers.com/ssd-performance-2017-c4307a92dea >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Maged Mokhtar <mmokh...@petasan.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Check out the following link: some SSDs perform bad in Ceph due to >>>>>> sync writes to journal >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-tes >>>>>> t-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Anther thing that can help is to re-run the rados 32 threads as >>>>>> stress and view resource usage using atop (or collectl/sar) to check for >>>>>> %busy cpu and %busy disks to give you an idea of what is holding down >>>>>> your >>>>>> cluster..for example: if cpu/disk % are all low then check your >>>>>> network/switches. If disk %busy is high (90%) for all disks then your >>>>>> disks are the bottleneck: which either means you have SSDs that are not >>>>>> suitable for Ceph or you have too few disks (which i doubt is the case). >>>>>> If >>>>>> only 1 disk %busy is high, there may be something wrong with this disk >>>>>> should be removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maged >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-10-18 18:13, Russell Glaue wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In my previous post, in one of my points I was wondering if the >>>>>> request size would increase if I enabled jumbo packets. currently it is >>>>>> disabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> @jdillama: The qemu settings for both these two guest machines, with >>>>>> RAID/LVM and Ceph/rbd images, are the same. I am not thinking that >>>>>> changing >>>>>> the qemu settings of "min_io_size=<limited to 16bits>,opt_io_size=<RBD >>>>>> image object size>" will directly address the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> @mmokhtar: Ok. So you suggest the request size is the result of the >>>>>> problem and not the cause of the problem. meaning I should go after a >>>>>> different issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been trying to get write speeds up to what people on this mail >>>>>> list are discussing. >>>>>> It seems that for our configuration, as it matches others, we should >>>>>> be getting about 70MB/s write speed. >>>>>> But we are not getting that. >>>>>> Single writes to disk are lucky to get 5MB/s to 6MB/s, but are >>>>>> typically 1MB/s to 2MB/s. >>>>>> Monitoring the entire Ceph cluster (using >>>>>> http://cephdash.crapworks.de/), I have seen very rare momentary >>>>>> spikes up to 30MB/s. >>>>>> >>>>>> My storage network is connected via a 10Gb switch >>>>>> I have 4 storage servers with a LSI Logic MegaRAID SAS 2208 controller >>>>>> Each storage server has 9 1TB SSD drives, each drive as 1 osd (no >>>>>> RAID) >>>>>> Each drive is one LVM group, with two volumes - one volume for the >>>>>> osd, one volume for the journal >>>>>> Each osd is formatted with xfs >>>>>> The crush map is simple: default->rack->[host[1..4]->osd] with an >>>>>> evenly distributed weight >>>>>> The redundancy is triple replication >>>>>> >>>>>> While I have read comments that having the osd and journal on the >>>>>> same disk decreases write speed, I have also read that once past 8 OSDs >>>>>> per >>>>>> node this is the recommended configuration, however this is also the >>>>>> reason >>>>>> why SSD drives are used exclusively for OSDs in the storage nodes. >>>>>> None-the-less, I was still expecting write speeds to be above 30MB/s, >>>>>> not below 6MB/s. >>>>>> Even at 12x slower than the RAID, using my previously posted iostat >>>>>> data set, I should be seeing write speeds that average 10MB/s, not 2MB/s. >>>>>> >>>>>> In regards to the rados benchmark tests you asked me to run, here is >>>>>> the output: >>>>>> >>>>>> [centos7]# rados bench -p scbench -b 4096 30 write -t 1 >>>>>> Maintaining 1 concurrent writes of 4096 bytes to objects of size 4096 >>>>>> for up to 30 seconds or 0 objects >>>>>> Object prefix: benchmark_data_hamms.sys.cu.cait.org_85049 >>>>>> sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) >>>>>> avg lat(s) >>>>>> 0 0 0 0 0 0 - >>>>>> 0 >>>>>> 1 1 201 200 0.78356 0.78125 0.00522307 >>>>>> 0.00496574 >>>>>> 2 1 469 468 0.915303 1.04688 0.00437497 >>>>>> 0.00426141 >>>>>> 3 1 741 740 0.964371 1.0625 0.00512853 >>>>>> 0.0040434 >>>>>> 4 1 888 887 0.866739 0.574219 0.00307699 >>>>>> 0.00450177 >>>>>> 5 1 1147 1146 0.895725 1.01172 0.00376454 >>>>>> 0.0043559 >>>>>> 6 1 1325 1324 0.862293 0.695312 0.00459443 >>>>>> 0.004525 >>>>>> 7 1 1494 1493 0.83339 0.660156 0.00461002 >>>>>> 0.00458452 >>>>>> 8 1 1736 1735 0.847369 0.945312 0.00253971 >>>>>> 0.00460458 >>>>>> 9 1 1998 1997 0.866922 1.02344 0.00236573 >>>>>> 0.00450172 >>>>>> 10 1 2260 2259 0.882563 1.02344 0.00262179 >>>>>> 0.00442152 >>>>>> 11 1 2526 2525 0.896775 1.03906 0.00336914 >>>>>> 0.00435092 >>>>>> 12 1 2760 2759 0.898203 0.914062 0.00351827 >>>>>> 0.00434491 >>>>>> 13 1 3016 3015 0.906025 1 0.00335703 >>>>>> 0.00430691 >>>>>> 14 1 3257 3256 0.908545 0.941406 0.00332344 >>>>>> 0.00429495 >>>>>> 15 1 3490 3489 0.908644 0.910156 0.00318815 >>>>>> 0.00426387 >>>>>> 16 1 3728 3727 0.909952 0.929688 0.0032881 >>>>>> 0.00428895 >>>>>> 17 1 3986 3985 0.915703 1.00781 0.00274809 >>>>>> 0.0042614 >>>>>> 18 1 4250 4249 0.922116 1.03125 0.00287411 >>>>>> 0.00423214 >>>>>> 19 1 4505 4504 0.926003 0.996094 0.00375435 >>>>>> 0.00421442 >>>>>> 2017-10-18 10:56:31.267173 min lat: 0.00181259 max lat: 0.270553 avg >>>>>> lat: 0.00420118 >>>>>> sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) >>>>>> avg lat(s) >>>>>> 20 1 4757 4756 0.928915 0.984375 0.00463972 >>>>>> 0.00420118 >>>>>> 21 1 5009 5008 0.93155 0.984375 0.00360065 >>>>>> 0.00418937 >>>>>> 22 1 5235 5234 0.929329 0.882812 0.00626214 >>>>>> 0.004199 >>>>>> 23 1 5500 5499 0.933925 1.03516 0.00466584 >>>>>> 0.00417836 >>>>>> 24 1 5708 5707 0.928861 0.8125 0.00285727 >>>>>> 0.00420146 >>>>>> 25 0 5964 5964 0.931858 1.00391 0.00417383 >>>>>> 0.0041881 >>>>>> 26 1 6216 6215 0.933722 0.980469 0.0041009 >>>>>> 0.00417915 >>>>>> 27 1 6481 6480 0.937474 1.03516 0.00307484 >>>>>> 0.00416118 >>>>>> 28 1 6745 6744 0.940819 1.03125 0.00266329 >>>>>> 0.00414777 >>>>>> 29 1 7003 7002 0.943124 1.00781 0.00305905 >>>>>> 0.00413758 >>>>>> 30 1 7271 7270 0.946578 1.04688 0.00391017 >>>>>> 0.00412238 >>>>>> Total time run: 30.006060 >>>>>> Total writes made: 7272 >>>>>> Write size: 4096 >>>>>> Object size: 4096 >>>>>> Bandwidth (MB/sec): 0.946684 >>>>>> Stddev Bandwidth: 0.123762 >>>>>> Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 1.0625 >>>>>> Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0.574219 >>>>>> Average IOPS: 242 >>>>>> Stddev IOPS: 31 >>>>>> Max IOPS: 272 >>>>>> Min IOPS: 147 >>>>>> Average Latency(s): 0.00412247 >>>>>> Stddev Latency(s): 0.00648437 >>>>>> Max latency(s): 0.270553 >>>>>> Min latency(s): 0.00175318 >>>>>> Cleaning up (deleting benchmark objects) >>>>>> Clean up completed and total clean up time :29.069423 >>>>>> >>>>>> [centos7]# rados bench -p scbench -b 4096 30 write -t 32 >>>>>> Maintaining 32 concurrent writes of 4096 bytes to objects of size >>>>>> 4096 for up to 30 seconds or 0 objects >>>>>> Object prefix: benchmark_data_hamms.sys.cu.cait.org_86076 >>>>>> sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) >>>>>> avg lat(s) >>>>>> 0 0 0 0 0 0 - >>>>>> 0 >>>>>> 1 32 3013 2981 11.6438 11.6445 0.00247906 >>>>>> 0.00572026 >>>>>> 2 32 5349 5317 10.3834 9.125 0.00246662 >>>>>> 0.00932016 >>>>>> 3 32 5707 5675 7.3883 1.39844 0.00389774 >>>>>> 0.0156726 >>>>>> 4 32 5895 5863 5.72481 0.734375 1.13137 >>>>>> 0.0167946 >>>>>> 5 32 6869 6837 5.34068 3.80469 0.0027652 >>>>>> 0.0226577 >>>>>> 6 32 8901 8869 5.77306 7.9375 0.0053211 >>>>>> 0.0216259 >>>>>> 7 32 10800 10768 6.00785 7.41797 0.00358187 >>>>>> 0.0207418 >>>>>> 8 32 11825 11793 5.75728 4.00391 0.00217575 >>>>>> 0.0215494 >>>>>> 9 32 12941 12909 5.6019 4.35938 0.00278512 >>>>>> 0.0220567 >>>>>> 10 32 13317 13285 5.18849 1.46875 0.0034973 >>>>>> 0.0240665 >>>>>> 11 32 16189 16157 5.73653 11.2188 0.00255841 >>>>>> 0.0212708 >>>>>> 12 32 16749 16717 5.44077 2.1875 0.00330334 >>>>>> 0.0215915 >>>>>> 13 32 16756 16724 5.02436 0.0273438 0.00338994 >>>>>> 0.021849 >>>>>> 14 32 17908 17876 4.98686 4.5 0.00402598 >>>>>> 0.0244568 >>>>>> 15 32 17936 17904 4.66171 0.109375 0.00375799 >>>>>> 0.0245545 >>>>>> 16 32 18279 18247 4.45409 1.33984 0.00483873 >>>>>> 0.0267929 >>>>>> 17 32 18372 18340 4.21346 0.363281 0.00505187 >>>>>> 0.0275887 >>>>>> 18 32 19403 19371 4.20309 4.02734 0.00545154 >>>>>> 0.029348 >>>>>> 19 31 19845 19814 4.07295 1.73047 0.00254726 >>>>>> 0.0306775 >>>>>> 2017-10-18 10:57:58.160536 min lat: 0.0015005 max lat: 2.27707 avg >>>>>> lat: 0.0307559 >>>>>> sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) >>>>>> avg lat(s) >>>>>> 20 31 20401 20370 3.97788 2.17188 0.00307238 >>>>>> 0.0307559 >>>>>> 21 32 21338 21306 3.96254 3.65625 0.00464563 >>>>>> 0.0312288 >>>>>> 22 32 23057 23025 4.0876 6.71484 0.00296295 >>>>>> 0.0299267 >>>>>> 23 32 23057 23025 3.90988 0 - >>>>>> 0.0299267 >>>>>> 24 32 23803 23771 3.86837 1.45703 0.00301471 >>>>>> 0.0312804 >>>>>> 25 32 24112 24080 3.76191 1.20703 0.00191063 >>>>>> 0.0331462 >>>>>> 26 31 25303 25272 3.79629 4.65625 0.00794399 >>>>>> 0.0329129 >>>>>> 27 32 28803 28771 4.16183 13.668 0.0109817 >>>>>> 0.0297469 >>>>>> 28 32 29592 29560 4.12325 3.08203 0.00188185 >>>>>> 0.0301911 >>>>>> 29 32 30595 30563 4.11616 3.91797 0.00379099 >>>>>> 0.0296794 >>>>>> 30 32 31031 30999 4.03572 1.70312 0.00283347 >>>>>> 0.0302411 >>>>>> Total time run: 30.822350 >>>>>> Total writes made: 31032 >>>>>> Write size: 4096 >>>>>> Object size: 4096 >>>>>> Bandwidth (MB/sec): 3.93282 >>>>>> Stddev Bandwidth: 3.66265 >>>>>> Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 13.668 >>>>>> Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0 >>>>>> Average IOPS: 1006 >>>>>> Stddev IOPS: 937 >>>>>> Max IOPS: 3499 >>>>>> Min IOPS: 0 >>>>>> Average Latency(s): 0.0317779 >>>>>> Stddev Latency(s): 0.164076 >>>>>> Max latency(s): 2.27707 >>>>>> Min latency(s): 0.0013848 >>>>>> Cleaning up (deleting benchmark objects) >>>>>> Clean up completed and total clean up time :20.166559 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Maged Mokhtar <mmokh...@petasan.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> First a general comment: local RAID will be faster than Ceph for a >>>>>>> single threaded (queue depth=1) io operation test. A single thread Ceph >>>>>>> client will see at best same disk speed for reads and for writes 4-6 >>>>>>> times >>>>>>> slower than single disk. Not to mention the latency of local disks will >>>>>>> much better. Where Ceph shines is when you have many concurrent ios, it >>>>>>> scales whereas RAID will decrease speed per client as you add more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having said that, i would recommend running rados/rbd bench-write >>>>>>> and measure 4k iops at 1 and 32 threads to get a better idea of how your >>>>>>> cluster performs: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ceph osd pool create testpool 256 256 >>>>>>> rados bench -p testpool -b 4096 30 write -t 1 >>>>>>> rados bench -p testpool -b 4096 30 write -t 32 >>>>>>> ceph osd pool delete testpool testpool --yes-i-really-really-mean-it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rbd bench-write test-image --io-threads=1 --io-size 4096 >>>>>>> --io-pattern rand --rbd_cache=false >>>>>>> rbd bench-write test-image --io-threads=32 --io-size 4096 >>>>>>> --io-pattern rand --rbd_cache=false >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the request size difference you see is due to the io >>>>>>> scheduler in the case of local disks having more ios to re-group so has >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> better chance in generating larger requests. Depending on your kernel, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> io scheduler may be different for rbd (blq-mq) vs sdx (cfq) but again i >>>>>>> would think the request size is a result not a cause. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maged >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-10-17 23:12, Russell Glaue wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am running ceph jewel on 5 nodes with SSD OSDs. >>>>>>> I have an LVM image on a local RAID of spinning disks. >>>>>>> I have an RBD image on in a pool of SSD disks. >>>>>>> Both disks are used to run an almost identical CentOS 7 system. >>>>>>> Both systems were installed with the same kickstart, though the disk >>>>>>> partitioning is different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want to make writes on the the ceph image faster. For example, >>>>>>> lots of writes to MySQL (via MySQL replication) on a ceph SSD image are >>>>>>> about 10x slower than on a spindle RAID disk image. The MySQL server on >>>>>>> ceph rbd image has a hard time keeping up in replication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I wanted to test writes on these two systems >>>>>>> I have a 10GB compressed (gzip) file on both servers. >>>>>>> I simply gunzip the file on both systems, while running iostat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The primary difference I see in the results is the average size of >>>>>>> the request to the disk. >>>>>>> CentOS7-lvm-raid-sata writes a lot faster to disk, and the size of >>>>>>> the request is about 40x, but the number of writes per second is about >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> This makes me want to conclude that the smaller size of the request >>>>>>> for CentOS7-ceph-rbd-ssd system is the cause of it being slow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can I make the size of the request larger for ceph rbd images, >>>>>>> so I can increase the write throughput? >>>>>>> Would this be related to having jumbo packets enabled in my ceph >>>>>>> storage network? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is a sample of the results: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [CentOS7-lvm-raid-sata] >>>>>>> $ gunzip large10gFile.gz & >>>>>>> $ iostat -x vg_root-lv_var -d 5 -m -N >>>>>>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >>>>>>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_var 0.00 0.00 30.60 452.20 13.60 222.15 >>>>>>> 1000.04 8.69 14.05 0.99 14.93 2.07 100.04 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_var 0.00 0.00 88.20 182.00 39.20 89.43 >>>>>>> 974.95 4.65 9.82 0.99 14.10 3.70 100.00 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_var 0.00 0.00 75.45 278.24 33.53 136.70 >>>>>>> 985.73 4.36 33.26 1.34 41.91 0.59 20.84 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_var 0.00 0.00 111.60 181.80 49.60 89.34 >>>>>>> 969.84 2.60 8.87 0.81 13.81 0.13 3.90 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_var 0.00 0.00 68.40 109.60 30.40 53.63 >>>>>>> 966.87 1.51 8.46 0.84 13.22 0.80 14.16 >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [CentOS7-ceph-rbd-ssd] >>>>>>> $ gunzip large10gFile.gz & >>>>>>> $ iostat -x vg_root-lv_data -d 5 -m -N >>>>>>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >>>>>>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_data 0.00 0.00 46.40 167.80 0.88 1.46 >>>>>>> 22.36 1.23 5.66 2.47 6.54 4.52 96.82 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_data 0.00 0.00 16.60 55.20 0.36 0.14 >>>>>>> 14.44 0.99 13.91 9.12 15.36 13.71 98.46 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_data 0.00 0.00 69.00 173.80 1.34 1.32 >>>>>>> 22.48 1.25 5.19 3.77 5.75 3.94 95.68 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_data 0.00 0.00 74.40 293.40 1.37 1.47 >>>>>>> 15.83 1.22 3.31 2.06 3.63 2.54 93.26 >>>>>>> vg_root-lv_data 0.00 0.00 90.80 359.00 1.96 3.41 >>>>>>> 24.45 1.63 3.63 1.94 4.05 2.10 94.38 >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [iostat key] >>>>>>> w/s == The number (after merges) of write requests completed per >>>>>>> second for the device. >>>>>>> wMB/s == The number of sectors (kilobytes, megabytes) written to the >>>>>>> device per second. >>>>>>> avgrq-sz == The average size (in kilobytes) of the requests that >>>>>>> were issued to the device. >>>>>>> avgqu-sz == The average queue length of the requests that were >>>>>>> issued to the device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
