Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 05/08/2013 10:57 PM, John Wilkins wrote:

James,

The output says, " monmap e1: 3 mons at
{4=192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0
},
election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8"

It looks like you have six OSDs (0,1,2,4,7,8) with only 3 OSDs running.
The cluster needs a majority. So you'd need 4 of 6 monitors running.



s/OSD/Monitor/ :-)



On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 AM, James Harper
mailto:james.har...@bendigoit.com.au>>
wrote:

 > On 05/08/2013 08:44 AM, David Zafman wrote:
 > >
 > > According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of 4
osds that are
 > down and out.  That may be the issue.
 >
 > Also, running 'ceph health detail' will give you specifics on what is
 > causing the HEALTH_WARN.
 >

# ceph health detail
HEALTH_WARN
mon.4 addr 192.168.200.197:6789/0 
has 26% avail disk space -- low disk space!

I guess that's the problem.

Thanks

James
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com 
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




--
John Wilkins
Senior Technical Writer
Intank
john.wilk...@inktank.com 
(415) 425-9599
http://inktank.com



--
Joao Eduardo Luis
Software Engineer | http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 8 May 2013, John Wilkins wrote:
> James, 
> The output says, " monmap e1: 3 mons 
> at{4=192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0
> }, election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8"
> 
> It looks like you have six OSDs (0,1,2,4,7,8) with only 3 OSDs running. The
> cluster needs a majority. So you'd need 4 of 6 monitors running.

Actually in this case it's confusing because the mons have numeric names 
"4" "7" and "8" which then map to ranks 0, 1, 2 internally.  It is best to 
give them alphanumeric names (like the hostname) to avoid this sort of 
confusion..

sage


> 
> 
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 AM, James Harper 
> wrote:
>   > On 05/08/2013 08:44 AM, David Zafman wrote:
>   > >
>   > > According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of
>   4 osds that are
>   > down and out.  That may be the issue.
>   >
>   > Also, running 'ceph health detail' will give you specifics on
>   what is
>   > causing the HEALTH_WARN.
>   >
> 
> # ceph health detail
> HEALTH_WARN
> mon.4 addr 192.168.200.197:6789/0 has 26% avail disk space -- low disk
> space!
> 
> I guess that's the problem.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> James
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> John Wilkins
> Senior Technical Writer
> Intank
> john.wilk...@inktank.com
> (415) 425-9599
> http://inktank.com
> 
> ___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[John Wilkins]

James,

The output says, " monmap e1: 3 mons at {4=
192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0},
election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8"

It looks like you have six OSDs (0,1,2,4,7,8) with only 3 OSDs running. The
cluster needs a majority. So you'd need 4 of 6 monitors running.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 AM, James Harper
wrote:

> > On 05/08/2013 08:44 AM, David Zafman wrote:
> > >
> > > According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of 4 osds
> that are
> > down and out.  That may be the issue.
> >
> > Also, running 'ceph health detail' will give you specifics on what is
> > causing the HEALTH_WARN.
> >
>
> # ceph health detail
> HEALTH_WARN
> mon.4 addr 192.168.200.197:6789/0 has 26% avail disk space -- low disk
> space!
>
> I guess that's the problem.
>
> Thanks
>
> James
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>



-- 
John Wilkins
Senior Technical Writer
Intank
john.wilk...@inktank.com
(415) 425-9599
http://inktank.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[ceph-users] Number of objects per pool?

[Craig Lewis]

Is there a practical limit to the number of objects I can store in a pool?

I'm planning to use RADOS Gateway, and I'm planning to start by adding 
about 1M objects to the gateway.  Once that initial migration is done 
and burns in, I want to migrate in another 20M objects.  I was planning 
to use a single S3 bucket, but I can work with many buckets if necessary.


I see that the RADOS Gateway stores the objects in the .rgw.buckets 
pool.  So I did a quick test with the rados bench tool.  I see object 
creation slowing down as more objects are added to the pool, and latency 
increases.



What would be the best way to go about making sure this scales up? Would 
radosgw-admin add pool help?


Thanks for the info.

--

*Craig Lewis*
Senior Systems Engineer
Office +1.714.602.1309
Email cle...@centraldesktop.com 

*Central Desktop. Work together in ways you never thought possible.*
Connect with us Website   | Twitter 
  | Facebook 
  | LinkedIn 
  | Blog 



___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] Mounting CephFS - mount error 5 = Input/output error

[Wyatt Gorman]

Does anyone have any ideas about the below authentication error?
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Wyatt Gorman" 
Date: May 7, 2013 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Mounting CephFS - mount error 5 = Input/output
error
To: "Jens Kristian Søgaard" , <
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>

Here's the result of running ceph-mds -i a -d

ceph-mds -i a -d
2013-05-07 13:33:11.816963 b732a710  0 starting mds.a at :/0
ceph version 0.56.6 (95a0bda7f007a33b0dc7adf4b330778fa1e5d70c), process
ceph-mds, pid 9900
2013-05-07 13:33:11.824077 b4a1bb70  0 mds.-1.0 ms_handle_connect on
10.81.2.100:6789/0
2013-05-07 13:33:11.825629 b732a710 -1 mds.-1.0 ERROR: failed to
authenticate: (1) Operation not permitted
2013-05-07 13:33:11.825653 b732a710  1 mds.-1.0 suicide.  wanted down:dne,
now up:boot
2013-05-07 13:33:11.825973 b732a710  0 stopped.

This "ERROR: failed to authenticate: (1) Operation not permitted" indicates
some problem with the authentication, correct? Something about my keyring?
I created a new one with ceph-authtool -C and it still returns that error.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jens Kristian Søgaard <
j...@mermaidconsulting.dk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>  how? running ceph-mds just returns the help page, and I'm not sure what
>> arguments to use.
>>
>
> Try running
>
> ceph-mds -i a -d
>
> (if the id of your mds is a)
>
> The -d means to to into the foreground and output debug information.
>
> Normally you would start the mds from the service management system on
> your platform. On my Fedora system it look like this:
>
> service ceph start mds.a
>
>
> --
> Jens Kristian Søgaard, Mermaid Consulting ApS,
> j...@mermaidconsulting.dk,
> http://www.mermaidconsulting.**com/ 
>
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[ceph-users] CRUSH maps for multiple switches

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

Let's assume 20 OSDs servers and 4x 12 ports switches, 2 for public
network and 2 for cluster netowork

No link between public switches and no link between cluster switches.

first 10 OSD servers connected to public switch1 and the other 10 OSDs
connected to public switch2. The same apply for cluster network.

1 HP c7000 chassis with 4x 10GbE connected to public network (2x10 for
each pubic switch)

All mons will be connected (if needed) to both switches

Will ceph able to load share across both switches with no interswitch link?
What I would like to do is avoid a stackable switch (too expansive)
and start with smaller switch and then adding ports when needed
without loosing redundancy or performance.

Interconnectinc public switches will result in at least 2 lost ports
and a bottleneck when traffic is routed across that link.
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question

[Mark Nelson]

On 05/08/2013 09:23 AM, Dave Spano wrote:

I like the suggestion about the Intel SSDs, but doesn't Dell have a
firmware restriction about what drives can go on their controllers?
Their cheapest SSD for the 515 $1000+. In a previous conversation, you'd
mentioned putting an LSI 9260 in an R515. This would allow someone to
get around this restriction correct?


My understanding (and I could be wrong!) is that there was a huge 
backlash when Dell did that and they ended up quickly issuing a firmware 
revision that allowed non-Dell branded drives again.


I figure just sticking an Intel SSD in isn't too disruptive, but if you 
want support from Dell, using 3rd party controllers may be getting a bit 
more adventurous than they like. :)


Mark



Dave Spano



*From: *"Mark Nelson" 
*To: *"Barry O'Rourke" 
*Cc: *ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:02:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question

On 05/07/2013 03:36 PM, Barry O'Rourke wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 >> With so few disks and the inability to do 10GbE, you may want to
 >> consider doing something like 5-6 R410s or R415s and just using the
 >> on-board controller with a couple of SATA disks and 1 SSD for the
 >> journal.  That should give you better aggregate performance since in
 >> your case you can't use 10GbE.  It will also spread your OSDs across
 >> more hosts for better redundancy and may not cost that much more per GB
 >> since you won't need to use the H700 card if you are using an SSD for
 >> journals.  It's not as dense as R515s or R720XDs can be when fully
 >> loaded, but for small clusters with few disks I think it's a good
 >> trade-off to get the added redundancy and avoid expander/controller
 >> complications.
 >
 > I hadn't considered lowering the specification and increasing the number
 > of hosts, that seems like a really viable option and not too much more
 > expensive. When you say the on-board controller do you mean the onboard
 > SATA or the H310 controller?

Good question on the controller.  I suspect the on-board will be good
enough for 1GbE or even bonded 1GbE throughput levels.  I've also heard
some mixed things about the H310 but haven't gotten to test one myself.
   What I've seen in the past is that if you are only using spinning
disks, a controller with on-board cache will help performance quite a
bit.  If you have an SSD drive for journals, you can get away with much
cheaper sata/SAS controllers.  You mentioned earlier that the Dell SSDs
were quite expensive.  Have you considered something like an Intel DC
S3700?  If you can't get one through Dell, you might consider just doing
3 disks from Dell and adding one yourself (you could put OS and journals
on it, and use the 3 spinning disks for OSDs).  This does have the
effect though of making the SSD a single point of failure (which is why
it's good to use the enterprise grade drive here I think).

Mark

 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Barry
 >
 >
 >

___
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

Re: [ceph-users] Best practice for osd_min_down_reporters

[Wido den Hollander]

On 05/07/2013 04:40 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Wido den Hollander wrote:

Hi,

I was just upgrading a 9 nodes, 36 OSD cluster running the next
branch from some days ago to the Cuttlefish release.

While rebooting the nodes one by one and waiting for a active+clean
for all PGs I noticed that some weird things happened.

I reboot a node and see:

"osdmap e580: 36 osds: 4 up, 36 in"

After a few seconds I see all the OSDs reporting:

osd.33 [WRN] map e582 wrongly marked me down
osd.5 [WRN] map e582 wrongly marked me down
osd.6 [WRN] map e582 wrongly marked me down

I didn't check what was happening here, but it seems like the 4 OSDs
who were shutting down reported everybody but themselves out (Should
have printed ceph osd tree).

Thinking about that, there is the following configuration option:

OPTION(osd_min_down_reporters, OPT_INT, 1)
OPTION(osd_min_down_reports, OPT_INT, 3)

So if just one OSD sends 3 reports it can mark anybody in the
cluster down, right?

Shouldn't the best practice be to set osd_min_down_reporters to at
least numosdperhost+1

In this case I have 4 OSDs per host, so shouldn't I use 5 here?

This might as well be a bug, but it still doesn't seem right that
all the OSDs on one machine can mark the whole cluster down.


I'm a little surprised tha OSDs turning off could have marked anybody
down at all. :/ Do you have any more info?



I was surprised as well. I'd have to dig a bit deeper to see what happened.


In any case, yeah, you probably want to increase your "reporters"
required. That value is set at 1 so it works on a 2-node cluster. :)


Does it seem sane to at least have this value greater than the amount of 
OSDs on one host? That way a single host can't mark the rest out when he 
gets into a weird situation.



-Greg


--
Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com



--
Wido den Hollander
42on B.V.

Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
Skype: contact42on
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question

[Dave Spano]

I like the suggestion about the Intel SSDs, but doesn't Dell have a firmware 
restriction about what drives can go on their controllers? Their cheapest SSD 
for the 515 $1000+. In a previous conversation, you'd mentioned putting an LSI 
9260 in an R515. This would allow someone to get around this restriction 
correct? 


Dave Spano 


- Original Message -

From: "Mark Nelson"  
To: "Barry O'Rourke"  
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:02:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question 

On 05/07/2013 03:36 PM, Barry O'Rourke wrote: 
> Hi, 
> 
>> With so few disks and the inability to do 10GbE, you may want to 
>> consider doing something like 5-6 R410s or R415s and just using the 
>> on-board controller with a couple of SATA disks and 1 SSD for the 
>> journal. That should give you better aggregate performance since in 
>> your case you can't use 10GbE. It will also spread your OSDs across 
>> more hosts for better redundancy and may not cost that much more per GB 
>> since you won't need to use the H700 card if you are using an SSD for 
>> journals. It's not as dense as R515s or R720XDs can be when fully 
>> loaded, but for small clusters with few disks I think it's a good 
>> trade-off to get the added redundancy and avoid expander/controller 
>> complications. 
> 
> I hadn't considered lowering the specification and increasing the number 
> of hosts, that seems like a really viable option and not too much more 
> expensive. When you say the on-board controller do you mean the onboard 
> SATA or the H310 controller? 

Good question on the controller. I suspect the on-board will be good 
enough for 1GbE or even bonded 1GbE throughput levels. I've also heard 
some mixed things about the H310 but haven't gotten to test one myself. 
What I've seen in the past is that if you are only using spinning 
disks, a controller with on-board cache will help performance quite a 
bit. If you have an SSD drive for journals, you can get away with much 
cheaper sata/SAS controllers. You mentioned earlier that the Dell SSDs 
were quite expensive. Have you considered something like an Intel DC 
S3700? If you can't get one through Dell, you might consider just doing 
3 disks from Dell and adding one yourself (you could put OS and journals 
on it, and use the 3 spinning disks for OSDs). This does have the 
effect though of making the SSD a single point of failure (which is why 
it's good to use the enterprise grade drive here I think). 

Mark 

> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Barry 
> 
> 
> 

___ 
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

Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question

[Mark Nelson]

On 05/08/2013 07:08 AM, Barry O'Rourke wrote:

Hi,

I've been doing some numbers today and it looks like our choice is
between 6 x R515's or 6 x R410's depending upon whether we want to allow
for the possibility of adding more OSDs at a later date.


Yeah, tough call.  I would expect that R410s or R415s would be a bit 
cheaper per node, but the R515s will let you cram a lot more OSDs in.




Do you have any experience with the Dell H200 cards?


I don't unfortunately.  For some reason I thought they were external-SAS 
only though?  Beyond that, afaik they are SAS2008 based cards so the 
chip being used is good, but I don't know if Dell has made any 
significant changes to the firmware.  Assuming there is nothing strange 
going on, they should perform similarly to the H310.





You mentioned earlier that the Dell SSDs
were quite expensive.  Have you considered something like an Intel DC
S3700?  If you can't get one through Dell, you might consider just doing
3 disks from Dell and adding one yourself (you could put OS and journals
on it, and use the 3 spinning disks for OSDs).  This does have the
effect though of making the SSD a single point of failure (which is why
it's good to use the enterprise grade drive here I think).


I've done the numbers for that and the difference isn't too bad, I'm
waiting to hear back from Dell about the specifications for their SSD's
and if they're not up to the job I'll probably go for the S3700's.


I haven't looked at Dell SSDs in the last 6 months, but I believe the DC 
S3700 should be significantly faster unless Dell has upgraded to newer 
Samsung units in the interim.




Thanks,

Barry



___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] Dell R515 performance and specification question

[Barry O'Rourke]

Hi,

I've been doing some numbers today and it looks like our choice is 
between 6 x R515's or 6 x R410's depending upon whether we want to allow 
for the possibility of adding more OSDs at a later date.


Do you have any experience with the Dell H200 cards?


You mentioned earlier that the Dell SSDs
were quite expensive.  Have you considered something like an Intel DC
S3700?  If you can't get one through Dell, you might consider just doing
3 disks from Dell and adding one yourself (you could put OS and journals
on it, and use the 3 spinning disks for OSDs).  This does have the
effect though of making the SSD a single point of failure (which is why
it's good to use the enterprise grade drive here I think).


I've done the numbers for that and the difference isn't too bad, I'm 
waiting to hear back from Dell about the specifications for their SSD's 
and if they're not up to the job I'll probably go for the S3700's.


Thanks,

Barry

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[James Harper]

> On 05/08/2013 08:44 AM, David Zafman wrote:
> >
> > According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of 4 osds that are
> down and out.  That may be the issue.
> 
> Also, running 'ceph health detail' will give you specifics on what is
> causing the HEALTH_WARN.
> 

# ceph health detail
HEALTH_WARN
mon.4 addr 192.168.200.197:6789/0 has 26% avail disk space -- low disk space!

I guess that's the problem.

Thanks

James
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 05/08/2013 08:44 AM, David Zafman wrote:


According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of 4 osds that are 
down and out.  That may be the issue.


Also, running 'ceph health detail' will give you specifics on what is 
causing the HEALTH_WARN.


  -Joao



David Zafman
Senior Developer
http://www.inktank.com

On May 8, 2013, at 12:05 AM, James Harper  wrote:


I've just upgraded my ceph install to cuttlefish (was 0.60) from Debian.

My mon's don't regularly die anymore, or at least haven't so far, but health is 
always HEALTH_WARN even though I can't see any indication of why:

# ceph status
   health HEALTH_WARN
   monmap e1: 3 mons at 
{4=192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0}, 
election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8
   osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in
pgmap v210142: 832 pgs: 832 active+clean; 318 GB data, 638 GB used, 1223 GB 
/ 1862 GB avail; 4970B/s rd, 7456B/s wr, 2op/s
   mdsmap e577: 1/1/1 up {0=7=up:active}

Anyone have any idea what might be wrong, or where I can look to find out more?

Thanks

James

___
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




--
Joao Eduardo Luis
Software Engineer | http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[David Zafman]

According to "osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in" you have 2 of 4 osds that are 
down and out.  That may be the issue.

David Zafman
Senior Developer
http://www.inktank.com

On May 8, 2013, at 12:05 AM, James Harper  wrote:

> I've just upgraded my ceph install to cuttlefish (was 0.60) from Debian.
> 
> My mon's don't regularly die anymore, or at least haven't so far, but health 
> is always HEALTH_WARN even though I can't see any indication of why:
> 
> # ceph status
>   health HEALTH_WARN
>   monmap e1: 3 mons at 
> {4=192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0}, 
> election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8
>   osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in
>pgmap v210142: 832 pgs: 832 active+clean; 318 GB data, 638 GB used, 1223 
> GB / 1862 GB avail; 4970B/s rd, 7456B/s wr, 2op/s
>   mdsmap e577: 1/1/1 up {0=7=up:active}
> 
> Anyone have any idea what might be wrong, or where I can look to find out 
> more?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> James
> 
> ___
> 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] HEALTH_WARN after upgrade to cuttlefish

[James Harper]

I've just upgraded my ceph install to cuttlefish (was 0.60) from Debian.

My mon's don't regularly die anymore, or at least haven't so far, but health is 
always HEALTH_WARN even though I can't see any indication of why:

# ceph status
   health HEALTH_WARN
   monmap e1: 3 mons at 
{4=192.168.200.197:6789/0,7=192.168.200.190:6789/0,8=192.168.200.191:6789/0}, 
election epoch 1104, quorum 0,1,2 4,7,8
   osdmap e504: 4 osds: 2 up, 2 in
pgmap v210142: 832 pgs: 832 active+clean; 318 GB data, 638 GB used, 1223 GB 
/ 1862 GB avail; 4970B/s rd, 7456B/s wr, 2op/s
   mdsmap e577: 1/1/1 up {0=7=up:active}

Anyone have any idea what might be wrong, or where I can look to find out more?

Thanks

James

___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com