Hi all,
Several teuthology jobs fail with the error 'exception on parallel execution'
in my testing. I don't see any failures/errors/assertions in the mon/osd logs.
And these failed jobs always have 'sentry event' log. However, I'm not able to
open the sentry link.
Here is an example:
http://p
On 02/06/2015 16:11, Jason Dillaman wrote:
I am posting to get wider review/feedback on this draft design. In support of
the RBD mirroring feature [1], a new client-side journaling class will be
developed for use by librbd. The implementation is designed to carry opaque
journal entry paylo
I ran into the 'op not idempotent' problem during the testing today. There is
one bug in the previous fix. In that fix, we copy the reqids in the final step
of 'fill_in_copy_get'. If the object is deleted, since the 'copy get' op is a
read op, it returns earlier with ENOENT in do_op. No reqids w
8AM PST as usual! Discussion topics include: cache tiering update.
Please feel free to add your own!
Here's the links:
Etherpad URL:
http://pad.ceph.com/p/performance_weekly
To join the Meeting:
https://bluejeans.com/268261044
To join via Browser:
https://bluejeans.com/268261044/browser
To
Dear ceph-devel,
Linux has more than one init systems.
We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all
our releases are systemd based.
Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit upstream.
We have 3 basic options for doing this in a packaged upstream system.
1) We dont install i
> > In contrast to the current journal code used by CephFS, the new journal
> > code will use sequence numbers to identify journal entries, instead of
> > offsets within the journal.
>
> Am I misremembering what actually got done with our journal v2 format?
> I think this is done — or at least we
On 06/03/2015 09:32 AM, Owen Synge wrote:
> 3) We add autotools an conditional for each init system, and only
> install with make install enabled init systems scripts/config.
This plan (3) sounds great to me.
- Ken
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the b
> > A new journal object class method will be used to submit journal entry
> > append requests. This will act as a gatekeeper for the concurrent client
> > case. A successful append will indicate whether or not the journal is now
> > full (larger than the max object size), indicating to the clien
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote:
> Dear ceph-devel,
>
> Linux has more than one init systems.
>
> We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all
> our releases are systemd based.
>
> Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit upstream.
>
> We have 3 basic options for doing
On 05/26/2015 10:28 PM, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> Hi Loic:
>
> The first round of 0.80.11 backports, including all trivial backports
> (where "trivial" is defined as those I was able to do by myself without
> help), is now ready for integration testing in the "firefly-backports"
> branch of the SUSE
On 06/03/2015 06:26 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote:
>> Dear ceph-devel,
>>
>> Linux has more than one init systems.
>>
>> We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all
>> our releases are systemd based.
>>
>> Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit
Hi Sage,
I saw the crash again here is the output after adding the debug
message from wip-newstore-debuglist
-31> 2015-06-03 20:28:18.864496 7fd95976b700 -1
newstore(/var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-19) start is -1/0//0/0 ... k is
--.7fff..!!!.
Here
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote:
> > I'm hoping that phase 3 can be avoided entirely. The upgrade/conversion
> > path (at least for upstream packages) will be firefly -> infernalis; I'm
> > don't think it will be that useful to build infernalis packages that do
> > sysvinit for systemd dis
On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
system is
> specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise.
I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS version (eg Ubuntu
15.04 should default to --with-init=syste
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
> system is
> > specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise.
>
> I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS version (e
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
> system is
>> specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise.
>
> I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS
On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
>> system is
>>> specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise.
>>
>> I was picturing th
On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> We could maybe autodetect if they don't specify one?
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant; my last email was unclear.
- Ken
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
Mor
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> >>> Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
> >> system is
> >>> specified? Otherwise someone will lik
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Paul Von-Stamwitz
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
> >> > Many people have reported that they need to lower the osd recovery
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Paul Von-Stamwitz
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>> >> > Many people h
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
>> > In contrast to the current journal code used by CephFS, the new journal
>> > code will use sequence numbers to identify journal entries, instead of
>> > offsets within the journal.
>>
>> Am I misremembering what actually got done with our
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote:
> I ran into the 'op not idempotent' problem during the testing today.
> There is one bug in the previous fix. In that fix, we copy the reqids in
> the final step of 'fill_in_copy_get'. If the object is deleted, since
> the 'copy get' op is a read op, it
Making the 'copy get' op to be a cache op seems like a good idea.
-Original Message-
From: Sage Weil [mailto:sw...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:14 AM
To: Wang, Zhiqiang
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: 'Racing read got wrong version' during proxy write testing
On
I'm wonder if this issue could be the cause of #11511. Could a proxy
write have raced with the fill_in_copy_get() so object_info_t size
doesn't correspond with the size of the object in the filestore?
David
On 6/3/15 6:22 PM, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote:
Making the 'copy get' op to be a cache op
Hi David,
Proxy write hasn't been merge into master yet. It's not likely this is causing
#11511.
-Original Message-
From: David Zafman [mailto:dzaf...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:46 AM
To: Wang, Zhiqiang; Sage Weil
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 'Racing read
26 matches
Mail list logo