Hi,
I just want to echo what the others are saying.
Keep in mind that RADOS needs to guarantee read-after-write consistency for
the higher level apps to work (RBD, RGW, CephFS). If you corrupt VM block
devices, S3 objects or bucket metadata/indexes, or CephFS metadata, you're
going to suffer some
dashboard approved. our e2e specs are passing but the suite failed because
of a different error.
cluster [WRN] Health check failed: 1 stray daemon(s) not managed by cephadm
(CEPHADM_STRAY_DAEMON)" in cluster log
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 9:29 PM Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> We have restarted QE valida
Hi Yuri,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 9:29 PM Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>
> We have restarted QE validation after fixing issues and merging several PRs.
> The new Build 3 (rebase of pacific) tests are summarized in the same
> note (see Build 3 runs) https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/64151#note-1
>
> Seeking
Hi everyone,
You are invited to join us at the User + Dev meeting this week Thursday,
February 22 at 10:00 AM Eastern Time!
Focus Topic: CephFS Snapshots Evaluation
Presented by: Enrico Bocchi and Abhishek Lekshmanan, Ceph operators from
CERN
>From the presenters:
Ceph at CERN provides block, o
I would be against such an option, because it introduces a significant risk
of data loss. Ceph has made a name for itself as a very reliable system,
where almost no one lost data, no matter how bad of a decision they made
with architecture and design. This is what you pay for in commercial
system
Cache tiering is deprecated.
> On Feb 20, 2024, at 17:03, Özkan Göksu wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I didn't test it personally but what about rep 1 write cache pool with nvme
> backed by another rep 2 pool?
>
> It has the potential exactly what you are looking for in theory.
>
>
> 1 Şub 2024 Per 20
Hello.
I didn't test it personally but what about rep 1 write cache pool with nvme
backed by another rep 2 pool?
It has the potential exactly what you are looking for in theory.
1 Şub 2024 Per 20:54 tarihinde quag...@bol.com.br şunu
yazdı:
>
>
> Ok Anthony,
>
> I understood what you said. I a
> Hi Anthony,
> Did you decide that it's not a feature to be implemented?
That isn't up to me.
> I'm asking about this so I can offer options here.
>
> I'd not be confortable to enable "mon_allow_pool_size_one" at a specific
> pool.
>
> It would be better if this feature could
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 4:59 PM Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>
> We have restarted QE validation after fixing issues and merging several PRs.
> The new Build 3 (rebase of pacific) tests are summarized in the same
> note (see Build 3 runs) https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/64151#note-1
>
> Seeking approvals
We have restarted QE validation after fixing issues and merging several PRs.
The new Build 3 (rebase of pacific) tests are summarized in the same
note (see Build 3 runs) https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/64151#note-1
Seeking approvals:
rados - Radek, Junior, Travis, Ernesto, Adam King
rgw - Casey
f
Please don't drop the list from your response.
The first question coming to mind is, why do you have a cache-tier if
all your pools are on nvme decices anyway? I don't see any benefit here.
Did you try the suggested workaround and disable the cache-tier?
Zitat von Cedric :
Thanks Eugen, see
Hi,
some more details would be helpful, for example what's the pool size
of the cache pool? Did you issue a PG split before or during the
upgrade? This thread [1] deals with the same problem, the described
workaround was to set hit_set_count to 0 and disable the cache layer
until that is
Hello,
we've found problem:
In systemd unit for OSD there is missing this line in the
[Service] section:
LimitMEMLOCK=infinity
When I added this line to systemd unit, OSD daemon started and
we have HEALTH_OK state in the cluster status.
Sincerely
Jan Marek
Dne Po, úno 05, 2024 at 11:10:21 CET
14 matches
Mail list logo
