Hi Sage,
i'm using debian but with a custom build. Should i use the debian branch
to build or the stable branch?
Thanks,
Stefan
Am 12.06.2012 04:41, schrieb Sage Weil:
Hi Laszlo,
Can you take a look at the last 4 commits of
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/debian
and let me
Hi,
We have some unfound objects in the cluster of ceph v0.39. While
recent ceph versions provide the command to mark unfound objects lost,
is there any manual procedure to handle unfound objects in v0.39?
Assume I know the pgid and oid of the unfound object. I am wondering
if the following
I asked a similar question in a previous email but I didn't get any
satisfying answers. What exactly does cephx auth secure?
From the wiki I just get this makes your cluster more secure, well
from what? If I run on an internal network accessible only
by a few trusted people - what does cephx auth
Ok I think I have a better understanding now.
I really don't want to setup a cluster using mkcephfs, it feels like
that's something built for test setups. If I(and I do) want to
automate the setup of OSDs, MONs and RGW it definitely makes it more
complicated using key based auth. I've seen the
Hi everyone,
I have a long flight ahead of me later this week and plan to be
spending some time on http://ceph.com/docs/master/ops/radosgw/ -- which
currently happens to be a bit, ahem, sparse.
There's currently not a lot of documentation on radosgw, and some of it
is inconsistent, so if one of
Am Montag, 11. Juni 2012, 09:30:42 schrieb Sage Weil:
If you can reproduce it with 'debug filestore = 20' too, that will be
better, as it will tell us what the FIEMAP ioctl is returning.
I ran another testrun with 'debug filestore = 20'.
Also, if
you can attach/post the contents of the
Hello List,
right now i'm starting to test 10GBE but i got strange results and have
no idea why this happens:
0,1 and 2 and 3 testsystems. But i've no idea why only Test system 2 =
3 have problems with speed but 3 with 0 or 2 with 0 does not have a problem.
1 = 0 = 9,9Gbit/s
1 = 2 =
CC: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net
CC: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara j...@suse.cz
---
fs/ceph/addr.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
index 173b1d2..12b139f 100644
---
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
Hi Sage,
i'm using debian but with a custom build. Should i use the debian branch to
build or the stable branch?
You should be fine with stable. That branch just has cleanups for
wheezy.
sage
Thanks,
Stefan
Am 12.06.2012
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Henry C Chang wrote:
Hi,
We have some unfound objects in the cluster of ceph v0.39. While
recent ceph versions provide the command to mark unfound objects lost,
is there any manual procedure to handle unfound objects in v0.39?
Assume I know the pgid and oid of the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Florian Haas flor...@hastexo.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a long flight ahead of me later this week and plan to be
spending some time on http://ceph.com/docs/master/ops/radosgw/ -- which
currently happens to be a bit, ahem, sparse.
There's currently not a
A few things that Wido missed:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, John Axel Eriksson wrote:
I asked a similar question in a previous email but I didn't get any
satisfying answers. What exactly does cephx auth secure?
From the wiki I just get this makes your cluster more secure, well
from what? If I run on
On 06/12/2012 12:02 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On 06/12/2012 01:00 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Yep. This was just fixed yesterday, in the testing-next branch, by
'libceph: transition socket state prior to actual connect'.
Are you still hitting the bio null deref?
No,
Cheers
Yan, Zheng
Would you
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
Hi Sage,
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 19:41 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
Can you take a look at the last 4 commits of
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/debian
and let me know if they address the issues you mentioned?
Yes, they fixes those
Thanks alot for your input Sage!
I get a feeling that this is good for a larger cluster, especially
when you have many people logging in - some without root access.
We are currently a VERY small company (two people have logins and root
access - noone else has a login at all). We've been running
Hi Yehuda,
thanks, that resolved a lot of questions for me. A few follow-up
comments below:
On 06/12/12 18:47, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Florian Haas flor...@hastexo.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a long flight ahead of me later this week and plan to be
spending
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, John Axel Eriksson wrote:
Thanks alot for your input Sage!
I get a feeling that this is good for a larger cluster, especially
when you have many people logging in - some without root access.
We are currently a VERY small company (two people have logins and root
access -
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Florian Haas flor...@hastexo.com wrote:
Hi Yehuda,
thanks, that resolved a lot of questions for me. A few follow-up
comments below:
We currently use a slightly different rule:
RewriteRule ^/(.*)
/radosgw.fcgi?params=$1%{QUERY_STRING}
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Matt Weil wrote:
is there a parallel option for mkcephfs? seems to create one osd at a time.
No, but if you look at the top of /sbin/mkcephfs, you can see that it is
built to be run in distinct steps that can be parallelized with your
favorite tools.
sage
--
To
When will there be 1.0?
Those of you who have been following Ceph, have probably noticed that
the Ceph version is going up in quite a rapid pace. This is due to the
fact that we try to follow Scrum, which is an agile methodology in
which we move in relatively small development cycles and deliver
On 06/13/2012 12:58 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:02 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On 06/12/2012 01:00 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Yep. This was just fixed yesterday, in the testing-next branch, by
'libceph: transition socket state prior to actual connect'.
Are you still hitting the bio null
Hi, Greg,
There's a btrfs regression in 3.4 that's causing a lot of grief to
ceph-on-btrfs users like myself. This small and nice patch cures it.
It's in Linus' master already. I've been running it on top of 3.4.2,
and it would be very convenient for me if this could be in 3.4.3.
Although the
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 10:06 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
I can package it if
you want. Now my fingers are crossed to accept libs3 soon, it's freeze
for Wheezy soon[1]. Ceph 0.47.2 is waiting for that to be in Wheezy.
libs3 got accepted into
On 13/06/12 13:46, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I know btrfs hasn't had maintenance fixes in stable series, but Chris
Mason tells me the only reason is that nobody stepped up to do so.
Given my interest, I might as well give it a try ;-)
Actually 3.3.3 had a fix for btrfs in it.. :-)
24 matches
Mail list logo
