Re: [ceph-users] experimental features

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:33:25 -0600 Mark Nelson wrote: > I've been thinking for a while that we need another more general command > than Ceph health to more generally inform you about your cluster. IE I > personally don't like having min/max PG warnings in Ceph health (they > can be independent

RE: Three times retries on write

Hi Sage, I aslo set debug ms to 20. The log file is in https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1aauR3uQ9ECTjk1TUJ0OHMzQVk/view?usp=sharing Seems like the problem is in the pipe. -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of S

Re: crush: straw is dead, long live straw2

On 12/08/2014 03:48 PM, Sage Weil wrote: - Use floating point log function. This is problematic for the kernel implementation (no floating point), is slower than the lookup table, and makes me worry about whether the floating point calculations are consistent across architectures (the mapping

crush: straw is dead, long live straw2

Hey everyone, When I was writing the original CRUSH code ages ago, I made several different bucket types, each using a different 'choose' algorithm for pseudorandomly selecting an item. Most of these were modeled after the original RUSH algorithms from RJ Honicky, but there was one new bucket

Re: rados read ordering

On 12/08/2014 09:03 AM, Sage Weil wrote: The current RADOS behavior is that reads (on any given object) are always processed in the order they are submitted by the client. This causes a few headaches for the cache tiering that it would be nice to avoid. It also occurs to me that there are likel

Re: wip-claim-2

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > Hi devs, > > We've created a new branch wip-claim-2, and new pull request > https://github.com/linuxbox2/linuxbox-ceph/pull/3 > based on review feedback. > > The big change is to replace "volatile" with "sharable", and replace > "strong_claim()" wit

wip-claim-2

Hi devs, We've created a new branch wip-claim-2, and new pull request https://github.com/linuxbox2/linuxbox-ceph/pull/3 based on review feedback. The big change is to replace "volatile" with "sharable", and replace "strong_claim()" with "clone_nonsharable()." This may not be perfect, feedback a

Re: CEPH & Shared RBD Volumes

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian Wiessner wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > Am 08.12.2014 15:30, schrieb Cook, Nigel: > > Folks, > > > > Can CEPH support 2 clients simultaneously accessing a single volume - for > > example a database cluster - and honor read and write order of blocks

Re: CEPH & Shared RBD Volumes

Hi Nigel, Am 08.12.2014 15:30, schrieb Cook, Nigel: > Folks, > > Can CEPH support 2 clients simultaneously accessing a single volume - for > example a database cluster - and honor read and write order of blocks across > the multiple clients? > Yes, we use ocfs2 ontop of rbd, gfs2 should also

Re: rados read ordering

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > The current RADOS behavior is that reads (on any given object) are always > processed in the order they are submitted by the client. This causes a > few headaches for the cache tiering that it would be nice to avoid. It > also occurs to me that

rados read ordering

The current RADOS behavior is that reads (on any given object) are always processed in the order they are submitted by the client. This causes a few headaches for the cache tiering that it would be nice to avoid. It also occurs to me that there are likely cases where we could go a lot faster

ceph branch status

-- All Branches -- Adam Crume 2014-12-01 20:45:58 -0800 wip-doc-rbd-replay Alfredo Deza 2014-07-08 13:58:35 -0400 wip-8679 2014-09-04 13:58:14 -0400 wip-8366 2014-10-13 11:10:10 -0400 wip-9730 2014-11-11 08:25:37 -0500 wip-5900 Andreas-Joachim

Re: experimental features

I've been thinking for a while that we need another more general command than Ceph health to more generally inform you about your cluster. IE I personally don't like having min/max PG warnings in Ceph health (they can be independently controlled by ceph.conf options but that kind of approach w

Re: Three times retries on write

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote: > Hi all, > > I wrote some proxy write code and is doing testing now. I use 'rados put' to > write a full object. I notice that every time when the cache tier OSD sends > the object to the base tier OSD through the Objecter::mutate interface, it > retri

RE: CEPH & Shared RBD Volumes

Folks, Can CEPH support 2 clients simultaneously accessing a single volume - for example a database cluster - and honor read and write order of blocks across the multiple clients? Regards, Nigel Cook Intel Fellow & Cloud Chief Architect Cloud Platforms Group Intel Corporation +1 720 319 7508

Re: dead code in gf-complete

Since both of you think this is a false positive, let's just ignore it. On 05/12/2014 21:06, Kevin Greenan wrote: > I can take a look... Man, some of our conditional expressions and > if-then-else chains are pretty ugly! > > -kevin > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Loic Dachary

Three times retries on write

Hi all, I wrote some proxy write code and is doing testing now. I use 'rados put' to write a full object. I notice that every time when the cache tier OSD sends the object to the base tier OSD through the Objecter::mutate interface, it retries 3 times. Looks like the 3rd try is a success. I ver