Re: [ceph-users] CephFS billions of files and inline_data?

Hi, Am 16.08.2017 um 19:31 schrieb Henrik Korkuc: > On 17-08-16 19:40, John Spray wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Korkuc wrote: > maybe you can suggest any recommendations how to scale Ceph for billions > of objects? More PGs per OSD, more OSDs, more pools? Somewhere in the > li

[ceph-users] Repairing a broken leveldb

Hi, while rebalancing a drive experienced read errors so I think leveldb was corrupted. Unfortunately there's currently no second copy which is up2date so I can forget this pg. Only one pg is affected (I moved all other pg's away as they had active copies on another osd. In "daily business" this

Re: [ceph-users] Deprecating ext4 support

Hi, Am 15.04.2016 um 07:43 schrieb Christian Balzer: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:02:13 +0200 Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner > GmbH wrote: >> Am 15.04.2016 um 03:07 schrieb Christian Balzer: >>>> We thought this was a good idea so that we can change the replication

Re: [ceph-users] Deprecating ext4 support

Hi, Am 15.04.2016 um 03:07 schrieb Christian Balzer: >> We thought this was a good idea so that we can change the replication >> size different for doc_root and raw-data if we like. Seems this was a >> bad idea for all objects. > I'm not sure how you managed to get into that state or if it's a bug

Re: [ceph-users] Deprecating ext4 support

Hi, Am 14.04.2016 um 03:32 schrieb Christian Balzer: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:51:58 +0200 Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH > wrote: >> Am 13.04.2016 um 04:29 schrieb Christian Balzer: >>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:00:19 +0200 Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner Gmb

Re: [ceph-users] Deprecating ext4 support

Hi, Am 13.04.2016 um 04:29 schrieb Christian Balzer: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:00:19 +0200 Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner > GmbH wrote: >> Am 11.04.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Sage Weil: >>> ext4 has never been recommended, but we did test it. After Jewel is >>>

Re: [ceph-users] Deprecating ext4 support

Hi, Am 11.04.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Sage Weil: > ext4 has never been recommended, but we did test it. After Jewel is out, > we would like explicitly recommend *against* ext4 and stop testing it. Hmmm. We're currently migrating away from xfs as we had some strange performance-issues which were res

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, Am 06.02.2016 um 07:15 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >> On Feb 6, 2016, at 13:41, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >> wrote: >> Am 04.02.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 17:00, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >>>>

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, sorry for the delay - productional system unfortunately ;-( Am 04.02.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 17:00, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >> wrote: >> Am 04.02.2016 um 09:43 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, Am 04.02.2016 um 09:43 schrieb Yan, Zheng: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner > GmbH wrote: >> Am 03.02.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 21:50, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >>>>

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, Am 03.02.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >> On Feb 3, 2016, at 21:50, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >> wrote: >> Am 03.02.2016 um 12:11 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 17:39, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >>>>

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, Am 03.02.2016 um 12:11 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >> On Feb 3, 2016, at 17:39, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH >> wrote: >> Am 03.02.2016 um 10:26 schrieb Gregory Farnum: >>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner >>> Gm

Re: [ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, Am 03.02.2016 um 10:26 schrieb Gregory Farnum: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner > GmbH wrote: >> Putting some higher load via cephfs on the cluster leads to messages >> like mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release aft

[ceph-users] mds0: Client X failing to respond to capability release

Hi, we're experiencing some strange issues running ceph 0.87 in our, I think, quite large cluster (taking number of objects as a measurement). mdsmap e721086: 1/1/1 up {0=storagemds01=up:active}, 2 up:standby osdmap e143048: 92 osds: 92 up, 92 in flags noout,noscrub,nodeep-s

[ceph-users] old PG left behind after remapping

Hi, after larger moves of serveral placement groups we tried to empty 3 of our 66 osds by slowly setting weight of them to 0 within the crushmap. After move completed we're still experiencing a large amount of files left on that osd-devices. For example pg 5.117: osdmap e56712 pg 5.117 (5.117) -