Le 03/07/2012 23:38, Tommi Virtanen a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Yann Dupont wrote:
In the case I could repair, do you think a crashed FS as it is right now is
valuable for you, for future reference , as I saw you can't reproduce the
problem ? I can make an archive (or a btrfs dump
On 07/02/2012 10:49 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 06/29/2012 01:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju
Following we will treat SetPageDirty and dirty page accounting as an
integrated
operation. Filesystems had better
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Sławomir Skowron wrote:
>> I have two questions. My newly created cluster with xfs on all osd,
>> ubuntu precise, kernel 3.2.0-23-generic. Ceph 0.47.2-1precise
>>
>> pool 0 'data' rep size 3 crush_ruleset 0
By using this we prevent scenarios where cephx keys are not accepted
in various situations.
Replacing the + and / by - and _ we generate URL-safe base64 keys
Signed-off-by: Wido den Hollander
---
src/common/armor.c |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src
Hi,
On 03-07-12 20:22, Ross Turk wrote:
Hey Wido! This is really cool.
I think it'd be useful to have a "guide" that people can follow to stand up
CloudStack with Ceph. Even though it's still in active development, I'd like to
encourage people to try it out. Would you be willing to work wi
Hi List,
i today upgraded from 0.43 to 0.48 and now i have one monitor which does not
want to start up anymore:
ceph version 0.48argonaut-125-g4e774fb
(commit:4e774fbcb38fd6883232b72352512a5f8e4a66e8)
1: /usr/bin/ceph-mon() [0x52f9c9]
2: (()+0xeff0) [0x7fb08dd11ff0]
3: (gsignal()+0x35) [0x7f
Signed-off-by: Wido den Hollander
---
src/include/rados/librados.h |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/include/rados/librados.h b/src/include/rados/librados.h
index 9f723f7..4870b0f 100644
--- a/src/include/rados/librados.h
+++ b/src/include/rados/librados.
On Thu 28-06-12 19:03:43, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> From: Sha Zhengju
>
> Following we will treat SetPageDirty and dirty page accounting as an
> integrated
> operation. Filesystems had better use vfs interface directly to avoid those
> details.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju
> ---
> fs/buffer.c
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> By using this we prevent scenarios where cephx keys are not accepted
> in various situations.
>
> Replacing the + and / by - and _ we generate URL-safe base64 keys
>
> Signed-off-by: Wido den Hollander
Do already properly decode URL-sage base64 en
Hi,
after upgrading to 0.48 "Argonaut", my OSDs won't start up again. This problem
might not be related to the upgrade, since the cluster had strange behavior
before, too: ceph-fuse was spinning the CPU around 70%, so did the OSDs. This
happened to both of my clusters. Thought that upgrading mi
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> > By using this we prevent scenarios where cephx keys are not accepted
> > in various situations.
> >
> > Replacing the + and / by - and _ we generate URL-safe base64 keys
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wido den Holland
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> > > By using this we prevent scenarios where cephx keys are not accepted
> > > in various situations.
> > >
> > > Replacing the + and / by - and _ we generate URL-safe base64 keys
> > >
> > > Signed-
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Yann Dupont wrote:
> Le 03/07/2012 23:38, Tommi Virtanen a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Yann Dupont > (mailto:yann.dup...@univ-nantes.fr)> wrote:
> > > In the case I could repair, do you think a crashed FS as it is right now
> > > is
> > > val
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian
Wiessner wrote:
> Hi List,
>
>
> i today upgraded from 0.43 to 0.48 and now i have one monitor which does not
> want to start up anymore:
>
> ceph version 0.48argonaut-125-g4e774fb
> (commit:4e774fbcb38fd6883232b7235251
Hmmm — we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, not on
every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 where we
maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and at this point we
should maybe just eat it?
-Greg
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> Hmmm ÿÿ we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes,
> not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45
> where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and
> at this point we should maybe
Hrm, it looks like the OSD data directory got a little busted somehow. How did
you perform your upgrade? (That is, how did you kill your daemons, in what
order, and when did you bring them back up.)
-Greg
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after upgra
I have three servers running mon and osd using Ubuntu 12.04 that I have been
testing with RADOS storing RBD KVM instances
0.47.3 worked extremely well (once I got over a few btrfs issues). The same
servers running 0.48 give a large number of "[WRN] slow request" messages
whenever I generate a
Hi, I see same messages here after upgrade to 0.48.
with random write benchmark.
I have more lags than before with 0.47 (but disks are at 100% usage, so can't
tell if it's normal or not)
- Mail original -
De: "David Blundell"
À: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 4 Juille
Am 04.07.2012 18:25, schrieb Gregory Farnum:
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian
> Wiessner wrote:
>
>> Hi List,
>>
>>
>> i today upgraded from 0.43 to 0.48 and now i have one monitor which does not
>> want to start up anymore:
>>
>> ceph version 0.48a
Le 04/07/2012 18:21, Gregory Farnum a écrit :
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Yann Dupont wrote:
Le 03/07/2012 23:38, Tommi Virtanen a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Yann Dupont mailto:yann.dup...@univ-nantes.fr)> wrote:
In the case I could repair, do you think a crashed FS as
Hello,
We are examining Ceph to use as email storage. In our current system,
several clients servers with different services (imap, smtp, etc) access
a NFS storage server. The mailboxes are stored in Maildir format, with
many small files. We use Amazon AWS EC2 for clients and storage server.
That's odd — there isn't too much that went into the OSD between 0.47 and 0.48
that I can think of, and most of that only impact OSDs when they go through
bootup. What does ceph -s display — are all the PGs healthy?
-Greg
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> Hi,
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian
Wiessner wrote:
> Am 04.07.2012 18:25, schrieb Gregory Farnum:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian
> > Wiessner wrote:
> >
> > > Hi List,
> > >
> > >
> > > i today
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Mitsue Acosta Murakami wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are examining Ceph to use as email storage. In our current system,
> several clients servers with different services (imap, smtp, etc) access
> a NFS storage server. The mailboxes are stored in Maildir format,
Although Ceph fs would technically work for storing mail with maildir,
when you step back from the situation, Maildir + a distributed file system
is a pretty terrible way to approach mail storage. Maildir was designed
to work around the limited consistency of NFS, and manages that, but
perform
On 4 Jul 2012, at 19:59, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> That's odd — there isn't too much that went into the OSD between 0.47 and
> 0.48 that I can think of, and most of that only impact OSDs when they go
> through bootup. What does ceph -s display — are all the PGs healthy?
> -Greg
>
Hi Greg,
Th
Hi, all:
Just want to make sure one thing.
If I set replica size as 2, that means one data with 2 copies, right?
Therefore, if I measure the performance of rbd is 100MB/s,
I can imagine the actually io throughputs on hard disk is over 100MB/s *3 = 300
MB/s.
Am I correct?
Thanks!
--
To unsu
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, eric_yh_c...@wiwynn.com wrote:
> Hi, all:
>
> Just want to make sure one thing.
> If I set replica size as 2, that means one data with 2 copies, right?
> Therefore, if I measure the performance of rbd is 100MB/s,
> I can imagine the actually io throughputs on hard disk is ove
Hi,
I am experimenting with ceph (rbd only for now), and have a few
questions about what is possible via placement rules.
For example I am looking at a setup with a local datacenter
(datacenter0) and a remote one (datacenter1). I'm using a placement rule:
rule rbd {
ruleset 2
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am experimenting with ceph (rbd only for now), and have a few questions
> about what is possible via placement rules.
>
> For example I am looking at a setup with a local datacenter (datacenter0) and
> a remote one (datacenter1). I'm using a pl
On 05/07/12 15:57, Sage Weil wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
2/ Also I would like to be able to say make my number of copies 3, but if I
lose datacenter0 (where 2 copies are), don't try to have 3 copies at
datacenter1 (so run degraded in that case). Is that possible?
That is wh
Hi,
I put up a small cluster with 3 osds, 2 mds, 3 mons, on 3 machines.
They were running 0.47.2, and this is a test to do rolling upgrade to
0.48.
I shutdown, upgraded the software, then restarted. One node at a time.
The first two seemed to be ok. The third one gave me some weird thing.
While
When I run the command ceph -s, I see the following information on
the mon log:
2012-07-05 02:44:13.298942 7f7d92b14700 0 can't decode unknown message
type 54 MSG_AUTH=17
2012-07-05 02:44:13.301588 7f7d9401b700 1 mon.a@0(leader).paxos(auth
active c 412..432) is_readable now=2012-07-05 02:44:1
34 matches
Mail list logo
