On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:38:26AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Karol Mroz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As I understand it, with the release of infernalis, ceph
> > daemons are no longer being run as root. Thus, rgw/civetweb
> > is unable to bind to privileged ports:
> >
> > http:/
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Karol Mroz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As I understand it, with the release of infernalis, ceph
> daemons are no longer being run as root. Thus, rgw/civetweb
> is unable to bind to privileged ports:
>
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13600
>
> We encountered this problem as well in
Hello,
As I understand it, with the release of infernalis, ceph
daemons are no longer being run as root. Thus, rgw/civetweb
is unable to bind to privileged ports:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13600
We encountered this problem as well in our downstream (hammer
based) product, where we run rgw/c
On Thu 12-11-15 10:53:01, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 11-11-15 15:13:53, mho...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > page_cache_read has been historically using page_cache_alloc_cold to
> > allocate a new page. This means that mapping_gfp_mask is used as the
> > base for the gfp_mask. Ma
Thanks for sharing !
Results are impressive, Great to see that write are finally improving.
I just wonder how much you could have with rbd_cache=false.
Also, with such high load,
maybe using jemalloc on fio could help too (I have seen around 20% improvement
on fio client)
LD_PRELOAD=${JEMALLO
>> * Why was the function "rbd_dev_probe_parent" implemented in the way
>> that it relies on a sanity check in the function "rbd_dev_destroy" then?
>
> Because it's not a bad thing?
There are different opinions about this implementation detail.
> What's wrong with an init to NULL, a possible
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, hzwulibin wrote:
> Hi, Sage
>
> I has a question about min_size of pool.
>
> The default value of min_size is 2, but in this setting, when two OSDs
> are down(mean two replicas lost) at same time, the IO will be blocked.
> We want to set the min_size to 1 in our production
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:54 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>>> I interpreted the eventual passing of a null pointer to the
>>> rbd_dev_destroy()
>>> function as an indication for further source code adjustments.
>>
>> If all error paths could be adjusted so that NULL pointers are never passed
>>
> So, my proposition is to postpone QA'ing performance pull
> requests until someone unrelated to PR author (or even author's company)
> can confirm that claims in that particular PR are true. Providing code snippet
> that shows the perf difference (or provide a way to verify those claims in
> repr
> -Original Message-
> From: Podoski, Igor
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:25 AM
>
> > But correctness and reliability regressions are one thing, performance
> > regressions are another one. I already see PRs that promise
> > performance increase, when at (my) first glance it looks
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Dalek, Piotr
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 9:56 AM
> To: Gregory Farnum; ceph-devel
> Subject: RE: Scaling Ceph reviews and testing
>
> > -Original Message-
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Farnum
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:14 PM
>
> It has been a long-standing requirement that all code be tested by
> teuthology before being merged to mas
Hi, haomai
Thanks for quick reply, your explain make sense for me.
Thanks!
--
hzwulibin
2015-11-26
-
发件人：Haomai Wang
发送日期：2015-11-26 16:00
收件人：hzwulibin
抄送：Sage Weil,ceph-devel
主题：Re: why
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:54 PM, hzwulibin wrote:
> Hi, Sage
>
> I has a question about min_size of pool.
>
> The default value of min_size is 2, but in this setting, when two OSDs are
> down(mean two replicas lost) at same time, the IO will be blocked.
> We want to set the min_size to 1 in our p
14 matches
Mail list logo
