Re: [ceph-users] cephfs replace hdfs problem

Hi, From the doc it looks like for the default cephfs-hadoop driver, Hadoop 2.x is not supported yet. You may need to get a newer hadoop-cephfs.jar if you need to use YARN? http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/cephfs/hadoop/ https://github.com/GregBowyer/cephfs-hadoop Sincerely, Yuan On Mon, Oct

Re: [ceph-users] get user list via rados-rest: {code: 403, message: Forbidden}

Hi, is someone able to reproduce the issue? How to get a list of all users via rest: https://rgw01.XXX.de/admin/user?format=json without a „uid=„? Thank you, Klaus noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg - Tel +49-911-9352-0

Re: [ceph-users] cephfs replace hdfs problem

Hi, Yuan Thanks a lot for your guide. I cloned the master branch and packaged a new jar and put it to the HADOOP_CLASSPATH and yarn.application.classpath. Now I can successfully run teragen and terasort benckmark test over cephfs . Thanks very much for advice. Best, Sun. From: ZHOU

Re: [ceph-users] "stray" objects in empty cephfs data pool

Hi, On 10/08/2015 09:14 PM, John Spray wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Burkhard Linke wrote: Hammer 0.94.3 does not support a 'dump cache' mds command.

Re: [ceph-users] Placement rule not resolved

Hi all, After installing the cluster, all the disks (sas and ssd) were mixed under a host, so the calculated reweight was related to the entire capacity. It doesn't explain why sas disks were selected when using a specific ssd-driven rule. Brgds De : CHEVALIER Ghislain IMT/OLPS Envoyé :

Re: [ceph-users] ceph-deploy mon create failing with exception

Hi, from what I'm seeing your ceph.conf isn't quite right if we take into account you cluster description "...with one monitor node and one osd...". The parameters "mon_inital_members" and "mon_host" should only contain monitor nodes. Not all the nodes in you cluster. More over you should

[ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

Hi Guy, Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I thought I'd run some tests looking how AsyncMessenger does in comparison. We spoke

Re: [ceph-users] How expensive are 'rbd ls' and 'rbd snap ls' calls?

Neither operation should involve the monitor beyond retrieving the CRUSH map. The image directory is stored as an object within the pool (rbd_directory) and the image snapshot list is embedded in each image's header object. These values are stored as omap key/value pairs associated to the

[ceph-users] How expensive are 'rbd ls' and 'rbd snap ls' calls?

How expensive are the calls to list the rbd images (rbd ls) and their snapshots (rbd snap ls). Is the metatdata for what images and snapshots are stored in ceph kept in memory on the MON (in which case the calls would be cheap)? ___ ceph-users mailing

[ceph-users] Red Hat Storage Day – Cupertino

Bay Area Cephers, If you are interested in hearing about Ceph @ DreamHost, come join us at Red Hat Storage Day – Cupertino: https://engage.redhat.com/storagedays-ceph-gluster-e-201508192024 Lot's of great speakers and a great opportunity to network. Best of all, It's free to attend! *Kobi

Re: [ceph-users] Annoying libust warning on ceph reload

Hi Ken Here it is: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13470 Cheers G. On 10/09/2015 02:58 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Goncalo Borges wrote: - Each time logrotate is executed, we received a daily notice with the message

Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

resend On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Haomai Wang wrote: > COOL > > Interesting that async messenger will consume more memory than simple, in my > mind I always think async should use less memory. I will give a look at this > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Mark

Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

COOL Interesting that async messenger will consume more memory than simple, in my mind I always think async should use less memory. I will give a look at this On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Guy, > > Given all of the recent data on how different

Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Guy, > > Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator > configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory > allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I

Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

Mark, Thanks for this data. This means probably simple messenger (not OSD core) is not doing optimal job of handling memory. Haomai, I am not that familiar with Async messenger code base, do you have an explanation of the behavior (like good performance with default tcmalloc) Mark reported ?