Hi,
we had some major up with our CephFS. Long story short..no Journal
backup and journal was truncated.
Now..I still see a metadata pool with all objects and datapool is fine,
from what I know neither was corrupted. Last mount attempt showed a blank
FS though.
What are the proper steps now to
Hi,
A while back I reported a bug in luminous where lifecycle on a versioned bucket
wasn't removing delete markers.
I'm interested in this phrase in the pull request:
"you can't expect lifecycle to work with dynamic resharding enabled."
Why not?
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/29122
https:
Right now our main focus is on the Veeam use case (VMWare backup), used
with an S3 storage tier. Currently we host a bucket with 125M objects
and one with 100M objects.
As Paul stated, searching common prefixes can be painful. We had some
cases that did not work (taking too much time, radosgw
Thanks Oliver and all others. This was really helpful. Regards.
Muhammad Junaid
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:25 PM Oliver Freyermuth <
freyerm...@physik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> Hi together,
>
> Am 01.08.19 um 08:45 schrieb Janne Johansson:
> > Den tors 1 aug. 2019 kl 07:31 skrev Muhammad Junaid <
> ju
"Sean Purdy" writes:
> Hi,
>
> A while back I reported a bug in luminous where lifecycle on a versioned
> bucket wasn't removing delete markers.
>
> I'm interested in this phrase in the pull request:
>
> "you can't expect lifecycle to work with dynamic resharding enabled."
the luminous backport
Great – what does ceph health detail show ? I’m guessing you most likely need
to remove the OSDs from CEPH006 (As well as CEPH006) to get Ceph to move the
data where it needs to be. OSD removal process is here:
https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/add-or-rm-osds/
Eric
From: EDH -
On 2019-08-01T15:20:19, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> One you don't mention is that multipart uploads break during resharding - so
> if our users are filling up a bucket with many writers uploading multipart
> objects, some of these will fail (rather than blocking) when the bucket is
> resharded.
Is t
Hi,
On 02/08/2019 13:23, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2019-08-01T15:20:19, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
>> One you don't mention is that multipart uploads break during resharding - so
>> if our users are filling up a bucket with many writers uploading multipart
>> objects, some of these will fail (
1. For 750 object write request , data written directly into data
partition and since we use EC 4+1 there will be 5 iops across the
cluster for each obejct write . This makes 750 * 5 = 3750 iops
don't forget about the metadata and the deferring of small writes.
deferred write queue + metadata,
Hi All,
Ive got a strange situation hopefully someone can help with.
We have a backfill occuring, that never completes, the destination osd of the
recovery predictably crashes. Outing the destination osd so another osd takes
the backfill causes a different osd in the cluster then to crash, boo
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:48 PM Gregory Farnum wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:06 PM Eric Ivancich wrote:
> I expect RGW could do this, but unfortunately deleting namespaces at
> the RADOS level is not practical. People keep asking and maybe in some
> future world it will be cheaper, but a n
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:51 PM wrote:
>
> > 1. For 750 object write request , data written directly into data
> > partition and since we use EC 4+1 there will be 5 iops across the
> > cluster for each obejct write . This makes 750 * 5 = 3750 iops
>
> don't forget about the metadata and the deferri
On 8/2/19 3:04 AM, Harald Staub wrote:
Right now our main focus is on the Veeam use case (VMWare backup), used
with an S3 storage tier. Currently we host a bucket with 125M objects
and one with 100M objects.
As Paul stated, searching common prefixes can be painful. We had some
cases that did
Dear colleagues,
at the moment, we use Ceph in routed environment (OSPF, ECMP) and
everything is ok, reliability is high and there is nothing to complain
about. But for hardware reasons (to be more precise - RDMA offload), we
are faced with the need to operate Ceph directly on physical interfaces
where small means 32kb or smaller going to BlueStore, so <= 128kb
writes
from the client.
Also: please don't do 4+1 erasure coding, see older discussions for
details.
Can you point me to the discussion abort the problems of 4+1? It's not
easy to google :)
--
Vitaliy Filippov
__
A few interleaved responses below
On 8/1/19 10:20 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31/07/2019 19:02, Paul Emmerich wrote:
>
> Some interesting points here, thanks for raising them :)
> We've had some problems with large buckets (from around the 70Mobject
> mark).
>
> One you don't m
We have scheduled the next meeting on the community calendar for August 28
at 14:30 UTC. Each meeting will then take place on the last Wednesday of
each month.
Here's the pad to collect agenda/notes:
https://pad.ceph.com/p/Ceph_Science_User_Group_Index
--
Mike Perez (thingee)
On Tue, Jul 23, 20
Hi all,
I am trying to find a simple way that might help me better distribute my data,
as I wrap up my Nautilus upgrades.
Currently rebuilding some OSD's with bigger block.db to prevent BlueFS
spillover where it isn't difficult to do so, and I'm once again struggling with
unbalanced distributi
On 02/08/2019 08:54, nokia ceph wrote:
Hi Team,
Could you please help us in understanding the write iops inside ceph
cluster . There seems to be mismatch in iops between theoretical and
what we see in disk status.
Our platform 5 node cluster 120 OSDs, with each node having 24 disks
HDD ( d
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:02 PM Peter Sabaini wrote:
> On 26.07.19 15:03, Stefan Kooman wrote:
> > Quoting Peter Sabaini (pe...@sabaini.at):
> >> What kind of commit/apply latency increases have you seen when adding a
> >> large numbers of OSDs? I'm nervous how sensitive workloads might react
> >
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:06 AM Janne Johansson wrote:
> Someone should make a webpage where you can enter that hex-string and get
> a list back.
>
Providing a minimum bitmap would allow someone to do so, and someone like
me to do it manually until then.
Robert LeBlanc
PGP Finge
Any EC pool with m=1 is fragile. By default, min_size = k+1, so you'd
immediately stop IO the moment you lose a single OSD. min_size can be
lowered to k, but that can cause data loss and corruption. You should
set m=2 at a minimum. 4+2 doesn't take much more space than 4+1, and
it's far safer.
On
22 matches
Mail list logo
