Hi Yehuda,
Thanks a lot for this inventory. I updated the tickets to make sure all of them
have the "giant" string in the backport field. I'll try backporting myself
which will help when it's trivial. If I hit a conflict I'll get back to you :-)
Greetings from Brussels !
On 30/01/2015 20:05, Y
Hi Andreas,
It looks like that was a stale sha1, but the newer one was also
broken. I've retested and it's working for me now. See latest wip-auth,
sha1 0c21a7875059bef80842756dfb003f47cc2d66a6.
Thanks!
sage
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Andreas Bluemle wrote:
> Hi Sage,
>
> I tried to integrate wi
Hi,
these are the actual issues that I backported:
- 9878 rhel7 s3-tests fail due to missing reason
- 9918 RGW-Swift: SubUser access permissions, does not seems to workminor
- 10103 swift tests failing
- 10354 Failed s3 tests in
upgrade:dumpling-firefly-x:parallel-next-distro-basic-multi ru
Thanks, I’ll take a look at osd_internals.
Are you saying that a cache tier —> EC Pool is good enough? What if any is the
downside to using a cache tier ontop of an EC pool? I assume that the size of
cache is going to be important, and so is the migration algorithm between the
cache tier and t
This would need to be a new backend, and it's going to be a massive
amount of work. You want to start by reading and understanding all of
the docs in osd_internals. I also suspect you'll get a lot of what
you need from using a replicated cache in front of an EC pool.
-Sam
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at
Right, the we should call strict_strtoll() instead. I opened issue
#10701, and sent a pull request for the fix.
Thanks,
Yehuda
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Axel Dunkel wrote:
>
> >
>> > Telling from the source code the issue seems not to be that the
> content
>> > lengths do not match, rat
>
> > Telling from the source code the issue seems not to be that the
content
> > lengths do not match, rather that the http-header Content-Length is
not
> > parseable (allthough the header is displayed fine in the debug
output). If
> > strict_strtol returns an error, to be exact - ?
> >
>
>
I’d like to explore adding a new EC pool type as you suggest. The idea is to
have RBD sit on-top of a fully functional EC backend. Just as with RAID6 arrays
today some applications are aware of the read-modify-write penalty and they
could optimize for it.
I’m new to ceph, so if you can point m
After a little digging I found
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/02fae9fc54c10b5a932102bac43f32199d4cb612
which seems to be a plausible fix in dumpling also
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3552. What do you think ?
On 30/01/2015 16:35, Samuel Just wrote:
> Yeah, that's probably new.
> -Sam
Hi,
the connection is not being shut down, also not idle (constantly
transferring with more than 100 Mbit/s). It (really :-) ) is the special
modified libapache2-mod-fastcgi, 2.4.7~0910052141-ceph1.
Telling from the source code the issue seems not to be that the content
lengths do not match, r
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Axel Dunkel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the connection is not being shut down, also not idle (constantly
> transferring with more than 100 Mbit/s). It (really :-) ) is the special
> modified libapache2-mod-fastcgi, 2.4.7~0910052141-ceph1.
>
> Telling from the source code the
Basically, it's an architectural choice:
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/pgbackend.rst#client-writes
If we wanted to support partial writes, we'd probably want to
introduce a second EC pool type with different tradeoffs. Note, you
can get slow partia
Hello,
I realize that the EC Backend does not support all operations like partial
writes, truncate, and others. I’d like to understand whether adding the missing
operations is something that is architecturally possible, or if this is a
limitation of the architecture / approach. Can someone shed
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Axel Dunkel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are issues with radosgw and large file transfers without using
> multiparts (like with "s3cmd --disable-multipart put") which seem to be
> somehow known, but unsolved.
>
> Things run fine if the request takes no longer than 180sec
Hi,
there are issues with radosgw and large file transfers without using
multiparts (like with "s3cmd --disable-multipart put") which seem to be
somehow known, but unsolved.
Things run fine if the request takes no longer than 180sec. If it takes
longer, rgw_rest.cc (line 1236) gives the error
Although I still have some confusing, it's glad to see more attempts.
More test results are welcomed!
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Chris Pacejo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>> It's really a surprise that you impl a MySQL backend. Could I know the
>> purpose
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Haomai Wang wrote:
> It's really a surprise that you impl a MySQL backend. Could I know the
> purpose? Because it may not fit with keyvaluestore I think.
We've found it to perform better (in isolation) than LevelDB. We were
able to map KeyValueDB's interface to
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Chris Pacejo wrote:
> Hi Haomai,
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>> For metadata overhead, we need to resolve it at upper level,
>> keyvaluestore won't add extra metadata in normal io except rarely
>> header save which only update when hea
Hi Haomai,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Haomai Wang wrote:
> For metadata overhead, we need to resolve it at upper level,
> keyvaluestore won't add extra metadata in normal io except rarely
> header save which only update when header changed.
Unfortunately, our write workload is dominated by
Yeah, that's probably new.
-Sam
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I stumbled upon what seems to be a leak at
> http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-01-29_15:41:06-rados-dumpling-backports---basic-multi/730305/
> and the valgrind xml file is at
> http://tracker.cep
Hi Sam,
I stumbled upon what seems to be a leak at
http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-01-29_15:41:06-rados-dumpling-backports---basic-multi/730305/
and the valgrind xml file is at
http://tracker.ceph.com/attachments/download/1610/v.txt
612 (584 direct, 28 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are de
Hi Sage, thanks for the quick reply.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> There is a level (or two) of indirection in KeyValueStore's
> GenericObjectMap that is there to allow object cloning. I wonder if we
> will want to facilitate a backend that doesn't implement clone and can
>
Hi Loic,
> There was originally two files for tests and the one with 364 or something at
> the end was removed
> if I'm not mistaken. Is there a reason for that ?
We had renamed the file from TestErasureCodeShec364.cc to
TestErasureCodeShec_all.cc
because the number of tests included in this fi
Hi,
On 30/01/2015 11:28, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Hi Loic,
>
> Thank you for your cooperation !
> If we could do something to reduce your burdens, please let us know.
Hopefully tests come out clean, let see :-)
There was originally two files for tests and the one with 364 or something at
the
Hi Loic,
Thank you for your cooperation !
If we could do something to reduce your burdens, please let us know.
Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae
-Original Message-
From: Loic Dachary [mailto:l...@dachary.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:38 PM
To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛
Cc: Ceph Devel
25 matches
Mail list logo
