[ceph-users] Radosgw/Objecter behaviour for homeless session

Hi All, I have a query regarding objecter behaviour for homeless session. In situations when all OSDs containing copies (*let say replication 3*) of an object are down, the objecter assigns a homeless session (OSD=-1) to a client request. This request makes radosgw thread hang indefinitely as the

[ceph-users] Re: ceph user list respone

On 11/26/19 4:10 AM, Frank R wrote: Do you mean the block.db size should be 3, 30 or 300GB and nothing else? Yes, if not - you will get data spillover of your RocksDB to slow_db at compaction rounds. k ___ ceph-users mailing list --

[ceph-users] Re: Single mount X multiple mounts

On 11/25/19 7:41 PM, Rodrigo Severo - Fábrica wrote: I would like to know the impacts of having one single CephFS mount X having several. If I have several subdirectories in my CephFS that should be accessible to different users, with users needing access to different sets of mounts, would it

[ceph-users] Re: EC pool used space high

On 11/25/19 6:05 PM, Erdem Agaoglu wrote: What I can't find is the 138,509 G difference between the ceph_cluster_total_used_bytes and ceph_pool_stored_raw. This is not static BTW, checking the same data historically shows we have about 1.12x of what we expect. This seems to make our 1.5x EC

[ceph-users] ceph user list respone

Hi, For your response: "You should use not more 1Gb for WAL and 30Gb for RocksDB. Numbers ! 3,30,300 (Gb) for block.db is useless. " Do you mean the block.db size should be 3, 30 or 300GB and nothing else? If so, thy not? Thanks, Frank ___

[ceph-users] ceph cache pool question

I have a question about ceph cache pools as documented on this page: https://docs.ceph.com/docs/nautilus/dev/cache-pool/ Is the cache pool feature still considered a good idea? Reading some of the email archives I find some discussion of how this caching is not recommended anymore, for

[ceph-users] v13.2.7 mimic released

This is the seventh bugfix release of the Mimic v13.2.x long term stable release series. We recommend all Mimic users upgrade. For the full release notes, see https://ceph.io/releases/v13-2-7-mimic-released/ Notable Changes MDS: - Cache trimming is now throttled. Dropping the MDS

[ceph-users] Re: FUSE X kernel mounts

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:57 PM Robert Sander wrote: > > Hi, > > Am 25.11.19 um 13:36 schrieb Rodrigo Severo - Fábrica: > > > I would like to know the expected differences between a FUSE and a kernel > > mount. > > > > Why the 2 options? When should I use one and when should I use the other? > >

[ceph-users] Re: FUSE X kernel mounts

Hi, Am 25.11.19 um 13:36 schrieb Rodrigo Severo - Fábrica: > I would like to know the expected differences between a FUSE and a kernel > mount. > > Why the 2 options? When should I use one and when should I use the other? The kernel mount code always lags behind the development process. But

[ceph-users] Single mount X multiple mounts

Hi, Just starting to use CephFS. I would like to know the impacts of having one single CephFS mount X having several. If I have several subdirectories in my CephFS that should be accessible to different users, with users needing access to different sets of mounts, would it be important for me

[ceph-users] FUSE X kernel mounts

Hi, I'm just deploying a CephFS service. I would like to know the expected differences between a FUSE and a kernel mount. Why the 2 options? When should I use one and when should I use the other? Regards, Rodrigo Severo ___ ceph-users mailing list