Hi,
I'm trying to modify the owner of an existing bucket. The original user
(userA) was manually created with radosgw-admin user create a few
releases ago (dumpling I guess). The new user
(a2176a80eeac47a58c3d773eaebf6659) is defined in the Openstack Keystone
service.
# ceph -v
ceph version
Hi Loic,
I think this gives all the flexibility to define any possible combination for
encoding ...
When one constructs the steps one has just to be aware that the 'most local'
encoding should happen in the end, right?
It would be usefule to have a tool which outputs then for each data aND
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Loic Dachary wrote:
Hi Ceph,
TL;DR: I volunteer to install a bot that posts a welcome message to the
first pull request of a new contributor. Unless someone else already has
something ready ;-)
This sounds great. And actually, a bot that complains about missing
Hi All,
There is a new bug-fix release of ceph-deploy, the easy deployment tool
for Ceph.
The full list of fixes for this release can be found in the changelog:
http://ceph.com/ceph-deploy/docs/changelog.html#id1
Make sure you update!
-Alfredo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi Andreas,
On 02/06/2014 14:20, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote: Hi Loic,
I think this gives all the flexibility to define any possible combination for
encoding ...
When one constructs the steps one has just to be aware that the 'most local'
encoding should happen in the end, right?
Hi Yehuda and Sage,
Can you help to comment on the ticket, I would like to send out a pull request
some time this week for you to review, but before that, it would be nice to see
your comments in terms of the interface and any other concerns you may have for
this. Thanks.
Thanks,
Guang
On
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, although
patches adding new syscalls or otherwise affecting the
-- All Branches --
Alfredo Deza alfredo.d...@inktank.com
2013-09-27 10:33:52 -0400 wip-5900
Dan Mick dan.m...@inktank.com
2013-07-16 23:00:06 -0700 wip-5634
2014-03-24 21:06:21 -0700 wip-sockaddr
2014-03-28 18:45:51 -0700 wip-fix-testcrypto
Gary Lowell
Hi Ceph,
TL;DR: s/pyramid/LRC/ in the implementation of
http://pad.ceph.com/p/cdsgiant-pyramid-erasure-code for clarity
Although the term Pyramid code has been consistently used in reference to the
technique used to reduce the network requirements when repairing from the loss
of a single OSD
Sorry, my previous reply was rejected by the list because it wasn't in
plain text. Let's try again.
librbd.cc:
/*
* Ceph - scalable distributed file system
*
* Copyright (C) 2011 New Dream Network
*
* This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the
Greetings cephalopods!
Wow, two community spam^H^H^H^Hemails in as many work days, things
certainly are moving quickly! I just wanted to alert everyone to the
fact that, while there isn't going to be a release of Giant and a
beginning of work on Hammer, we still want to hold our quarterly
Hi,
The missing Lesser is a nice typo :-) There has never been a GPLv2.1 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_2 ) and I
guess it helps disambiguate the interpretation.
Cheers
On 02/06/2014 18:15, Steve Taylor wrote:
Sorry, my previous reply was rejected by the
Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up. Is this something anyone cares
to fix? I'm personally happy to accept it as is with this email chain
as reference, but I will also be happy to add the Lesser and submit
a pull request if you want it. I'm not big on changing other peoples'
copyright headers
Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there,
but I think it shouldn't matter. We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while
back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all
authors. It might be worth doing a quick check to make sure there aren't
On 06/02/2014 10:22 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there,
but I think it shouldn't matter. We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while
back (it was GPL due to a header we used?) and got confirmations from all
authors. It might be worth doing a
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Josh Durgin josh.dur...@inktank.com wrote:
On 06/02/2014 10:22 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
Ideally the change comes from Josh, who originally put the notice there,
but I think it shouldn't matter. We relicensed rbd.cc as LGPL2 a while
back (it was GPL due to a
Hello all,
As you may already know, we have been using Ceph for quite some time now to back
the ~okeanos [1] public cloud service, which is powered by Synnefo [2].
A few months ago we were kindly invited to write an article about our
experiences with Ceph for the USENIX ;login: magazine. The
Hi koleosfuscus,
A simpler proposal was made a few days ago. As you rightfully point out, the
previous one was a bit complicated to understand ;-)
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/19753
Cheers
On 02/06/2014 20:28, Koleos Fuskus wrote:
Hi Loic,
I am trying to
This is great. Thanks for sharing Filippos!
Best Regards,
Patrick McGarry
Director, Community || Inktank
http://ceph.com || http://inktank.com
@scuttlemonkey || @ceph || @inktank
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Filippos Giannakos philipg...@grnet.gr wrote:
Hello all,
As you may already
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, although
On 06/02/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
The syscall changes seem like
On Monday 02 June 2014 12:26:22 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/02/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
pointed this way, but
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Ok. Sorry about missing linux-api, I confused it with linux-arch, which
may not be as relevant here, except for the one question whether we
actually want to have the new ABI on all 32-bit architectures or only
as an opt-in for those that expect to stay
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:32:19PM +0300, Filippos Giannakos wrote:
As you may already know, we have been using Ceph for quite some time now to
back
the ~okeanos [1] public cloud service, which is powered by Synnefo [2].
(Background info for other readers: Synnefo is a cloud layer on top of
Thanks, Filippos! Very interesting reading.
Are you comfortable enough yet to remove the RAID-1 from your architecture and
get all that space back?
Ian R. Colle
Global Director
of Software Engineering
Red Hat (Inktank is now part of Red Hat!)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ircolle
This is the first development release since Firefly. It includes a
lot of work that we delayed merging while stabilizing things. Lots of
new functionality, as well as several fixes that are baking a bit before
getting backported.
Upgrading
-
* CephFS support for the legacy anchor table
26 matches
Mail list logo
