The only reason to stray from what is defined in the docs is if you have a
very specific use case for the application of RAID or something else not
defined.
You are in good shape. Just follow the guidance in the docs and you
shouldn't have any problems.
Ceph is powerful and intelligent technology
I’m newbie to Ceph ☺. When I go through the doc and some discussions, seems
one OSD per disk will be of better performance than one OSD per server on RAID.
Is that correct?
Thanks again.
From: Donny Davis [mailto:do...@fortnebula.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 10:19 AM
To: ST Wong (ITSC
The kernel client in my experience was much better all around. I had an
issue with file corruption issue quite a long time ago) that could have
been prevented if I had proper UPS and was using the kernel client.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Zhang Qiang wrote:
> Thanks Patrick,
> I should have
It would work fine either way. I was just curious how people are setting up
Ceph in their environments.
Usually when people say they have one OSD per server, then they are using
RAID for one reason or another.
It not really relevant to the question at hand, but thank you for
satisfying my curiosi
There are multiple disks per server, and will have one OSD for each disk. Is
that okay?
Thanks again.
From: Donny Davis [mailto:do...@fortnebula.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 10:12 AM
To: ST Wong (ITSC)
Cc: Ronny Aasen; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] split brain case
Thanks Patrick,
I should have checked the tracker first.
I'll try the kernel client and a upgrade to see if it resolves.
On 2 April 2018 at 22:29, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> Probably fixed by this: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17206
>
> You need to upgrade your version of ceph-fuse.
>
> On Mon,
Do you only have one OSD per server? Not that is really matters... because
all of the above stated is true in any case.
Just curious
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:40 PM, ST Wong (ITSC) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> >how many servers are your osd's split over ? keep in mind that ceph's
> default picks one osd
Hi,
>how many servers are your osd's split over ? keep in mind that ceph's default
>picks one osd from each host. so you would need minimum 4 osd hosts in total
>to be able to use 4+2 pools and with only 4 hosts you have no failuredomain.
>but 4 hosts in the minimum sane starting point for a r
Hi Kjetil,
I've tried to get the pg scrubbing/deep scrubbing and nothing seems to be
happening. I've tried it a few times over the last few days. My cluster is
recovering from a failed disk (which was probably the reason for the
inconsistency), do I need to wait for the cluster to heal before
repa
I have this inconsistent pg also for a long time on my test cluster,
also tried pg repair among other things. Can I also get some help on
this?
[@c02 ~]# ceph health detail
HEALTH_ERR 1 scrub errors; Possible data damage: 1 pg inconsistent
OSD_SCRUB_ERRORS 1 scrub errors
PG_DAMAGED Possible d
This is a known issue as far as I can tell, I've read about it several
times. Ceph performs great (using radosgw), but as the OSDs fill up
performance falls sharply. I am down to half of empty performance with
about 50% disk usage.
My questions are: does adding more OSDs / disks to the cluster
Hi,
scrub or deep-scrub the pg, that should in theory get you back to
list-inconsistent-obj spitting out what's wrong, then mail that info to the
list.
-KJ
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Michael Sudnick
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a small cluster with an inconsistent pg. I've tried ceph pg rep
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:21 AM Kevin Hrpcek
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We use python librados bindings for object operations on our cluster. For
> a long time we've been using 2 ec pools with k=4 m=1 and a fixed 4MB
> read/write size with the python bindings. During preparations for migrating
> all of o
On 04/01/2018 07:59 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
Hello,
firstly, Jack pretty much correctly correlated my issues to Mark's points,
more below.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 08:24:45 -0500 Mark Nelson wrote:
On 03/29/2018 08:59 PM, Christian Balzer wrote:
Hello,
my crappy test cluster was rendered in
Hello,
We use python librados bindings for object operations on our cluster.
For a long time we've been using 2 ec pools with k=4 m=1 and a fixed 4MB
read/write size with the python bindings. During preparations for
migrating all of our data to a k=6 m=2 pool we've discovered that ec
pool ali
Probably fixed by this: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17206
You need to upgrade your version of ceph-fuse.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Zhang Qiang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using ceph-fuse 10.2.3 on CentOS 7.3.1611. ceph-fuse always
> segfaults after running for some time.
>
> *** Caught signal
Filestore had no such recommendation for size of journal per TB. The
default was a flat 10GB partition. For bluestore, the recommendation has
been 10GB per TB. However, with your setup, I would probably bump that up
a bit more just to give you more room for your WAL/DB partition. While
bluestor
It depends on how you're mounting CephFS. If you're using ceph-fuse, I
believe that you would see a performance increase from multiple mount
points for each volume. How much and if that actually holds up for you in
production would require some testing on your end.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 6:53 A
Before I would start multiple daemons on the same host, I would start
looking at running your RGW daemons in containers. That way you can manage
resources to them a little more elegantly and scale them as you need.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:11 PM Robert Stanford
wrote:
>
> When I am running at
Christian Balzer writes:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 08:33:35 +0200 John Hearns wrote:
>> Christian, you mention single socket systems for storage servers.
>> I often thought that the Xeon-D would be ideal as a building block for
>> storage servers
>> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/proce
Hi,
I'm using ceph-fuse 10.2.3 on CentOS 7.3.1611. ceph-fuse always
segfaults after running for some time.
*** Caught signal (Segmentation fault) **
in thread 7f455d832700 thread_name:ceph-fuse
ceph version 10.2.3 (ecc23778eb545d8dd55e2e4735b53cc93f92e65b)
1: (()+0x2a442a) [0x7f457208e42a]
2
Hello,
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 08:33:35 +0200 John Hearns wrote:
> Christian, you mention single socket systems for storage servers.
> I often thought that the Xeon-D would be ideal as a building block for
> storage servers
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/xeon/d-processo
22 matches
Mail list logo
