be 10G, since 1G is surely going
to be a bottleneck.
We are running the above setup. No problems. Only issue is: adding a
fourth node will be relatively intrusive.
MJ
On 9/20/19 8:23 PM, Salsa wrote:
Replying inline.
--
Salsa
Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure
nc-status" is 0.00 on all hosts.
Seems that replying on "chronyc sources" is not always enough to make
sure that everything is synced indeed.
Thanks for the help!
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
if the peer config will
actually help in this situation. But time will tell.
@John: Thanks for the maxsources suggestion
@Bill: thanks for the interesting article, will check it out!
MJ
On 4/25/19 5:47 PM, Bill Sharer wrote:
If you are just synching to the outside pool, the three hosts may end
ent clock skew from cephs perspective?
Because "ceph health detail" in case of HEALTH_OK does not show it.
(I want to start monitoring it continuously, to see if I can find some
sort of pattern)
Thanks!
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing li
Hi,
I was able to solve a similar issue on our cluster using this blog:
https://ceph.com/geen-categorie/ceph-manually-repair-object/
It does help if you are running a 3/2 config.
Perhaps it helps you as well.
MJ
On 09/25/2018 02:37 AM, Sergey Malinin wrote:
Hello,
During normal operation
On 09/24/2018 08:53 AM, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
Thanks for your anecdote ;-)
Could it be that I stack too many things (XFS in LVM in md-RAID in SSD
's FTL)?
No, we regularly use the same compound of layers, just without the SSD.
mj
___
ceph-users
zfs, like in adding disks
to raids to expand space for example.
mj
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
) always 'something' happened. (same for the few
times we tried reiserfs, btw)
So, while my story may be very anecdotical (and you will probably find
many others here claiming the opposite) our own conclusion is very
clear: we love xfs, and do not like btrfs very much.
MJ
On 09/22/2018 10:58 AM
Hi Hervé!
Thanks for the detailed summary, much appreciated!
Best,
MJ
On 09/21/2018 09:03 AM, Hervé Ballans wrote:
Hi MJ (and all),
So we upgraded our Proxmox/Ceph cluster, and if we have to summarize the
operation in a few words : overall, everything went well :)
The most critical
Hi Hervé,
No answer from me, but just to say that I have exactly the same upgrade
path ahead of me. :-)
Please report here any tips, trics, or things you encountered doing the
upgrades. It could potentially save us a lot of time. :-)
Thanks!
MJ
On 09/13/2018 05:23 PM, Hervé Ballans wrote
I assumed that a simple "ceph pg repair 2.1a9" was
enough to solve this without introducing corruption into our 3/2 cluster.
MJ
On 08/23/2018 12:28 PM, Mark Schouten wrote:
Gregory's answer worries us. We thought that with a 3/2 pool, and one
PG
corrupted, the assumption would be:
sed to see this is on our cluster, as
it should be and has been running stable and reliably for over two
years. Perhaps just a one-time glitch.
Thanks for your replies!
MJ
On 08/23/2018 01:06 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:46 AM John Spray <mailto:jsp...@redhat.com>> wrote
e this is a size 3, min 2 pool... shouldn't this have been
taken care of automatically..? ('self-healing' and all that..?)
So, I'm having my morning coffee finally, wondering what happened... :-)
Best regards to all, have a nice day!
MJ
___
ceph
no way to specify what outgoing port iperf should use, otherwise I
could try again using the same ports, to check the pattern.
Thanks again!
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
and then started ramping up each OSD. I created a script to
do it dynamically, which will check CPU of the new host with OSDs that
Would you mind sharing this script..?
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com
On 06/07/2018 01:45 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
Removing cluster network is enough. After the restart the OSDs will not
publish a cluster network in the OSDMap anymore.
You can keep the public network in ceph.conf and can even remove that
after you removed the 10.10.x.x addresses from the
nt of data: 32730 GB used, 56650
GB / 89380 GB avail
We set noscrub and no-deepscrub during the rebalance, and our VMs
experienced basically no impact.
MJ
On 10/03/2017 05:37 PM, lists wrote:
Thanks Jake, for your extensive reply. :-)
MJ
On 3-10-2017 15:21, Jake Young wrote:
On Tue, Oc
uot;hammer". This resulted in approx 24 hours
rebuild, but actually without significant inpact on the hosted VMs.
Is it safe to assume that setting it to "optimal" would have a similar
impact, or are the implications bigger?
MJ
On 09/28/2017 10:29 AM, Dan van der Ster wr
Which route is the preferred one?
Or is there a third (or fourth?) option..? :-)
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Hi,
I forwarded your announcement to the dovecot mailinglist. The following
reply to it was posted by there by Timo Sirainen. I'm forwarding it
here, as you might not be reading the dovecot mailinglist.
Wido:
First, the Github link:
https://github.com/ceph-dovecot/dovecot-ceph-plugin
I am
after a reboot.
But perhaps I completely misunderstand your question... ;-)
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
their impact)
Any other tips, do's or don'ts, or things to keep in mind related to
snapshots, VM/OSD filesystems, or using fstrim..?
(our cluster is also small, hammer, three servers with 8 OSDs each, and
journals on ssd, plenty of cpu/ram)
Again, thanks for your interesting post.
MJ
...)
We are still on hammer, but if the result of upgrading to jewel is
actually a massive performance decrease, I might postpone as long as
possible...
Most of our VMs have a snapshot or two...
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users
ah right: _during_ the actual removal, you mean. :-)
clear now.
mj
On 04/13/2017 05:50 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote:
Le 13/04/2017 à 17:47, mj a écrit :
Hi,
On 04/13/2017 04:53 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote:
We use rbd snapshots on Firefly (and Hammer now) and I didn't see any
measurable impact
Hi,
On 04/13/2017 04:53 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote:
We use rbd snapshots on Firefly (and Hammer now) and I didn't see any
measurable impact on performance... until we tried to remove them.
What exactly do you mean with that?
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing
On 04/01/2017 04:02 PM, John Petrini wrote:
Hello,
I'm also curious about the impact of clock drift. We see the same on
both of our clusters despite trying various NTP servers including our
own local servers. Ultimately we just ended up adjusting our monitoring
to be less sensitive to it
Hi,
On 04/01/2017 02:10 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
You could try the chrony NTP daemon instead of ntpd and make sure all
MONs are peers from each other.
I understand now what that means. I have set it up according to your
suggestion.
Curious to see how this works out, thanks!
MJ
good experiences with those ntp servers.
So, you're telling me that the MONs should be peers from each other...
But if all MONs listen/sync to/with each other, where do I configure the
external stratum1 source.?
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users
Hi!
On 04/01/2017 12:49 PM, Wei Jin wrote:
mon_clock_drift_allowed should be used in monitor process, what's the
output of `ceph daemon mon.foo config show | grep clock`?
how did you change the value? command line or config file?
I guess I changed it wrong then... Did it in ceph.conf, like:
ame HEALTH_WARN clock skew detected on
mon.1; Monitor clock skew detected mon.1 addr 10.10.89.2:6789/0 clock skew
0.113709s > max 0.1s (latency 0.000523111s)
Can anyone explain why the running config shows
"mon_clock_drift_allowed": "0.2" and the HEALTH_WARN says "
On 03/24/2017 10:13 PM, Bob R wrote:
You can operate without the default pools without issue.
Thanks!
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
ault pools a problem? Do I need to recreate them,
or can they safely be deleted?
I'm on hammer, but intending to upgrade to jewel, and trying to identify
potential issues, therefore this question.
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.cep
benefits.
Anyway, thanks for your reply. :-)
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
over the network.
And if this is not the case, then why not? :-)
Thanks for any insights or pointers!
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Hi Jonathan, Anthony and Steve,
Thanks very much for your valuable advise and suggestions!
MJ
On 03/21/2017 08:53 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
If it took 7hr for one drive you probably already done this (or
defaults are for low impact recovery) but before doing anything you
want to besure
will rebuild anyway...and I have the feeling that
rebuilding from 4 -> 8 OSDs is not going to be much heavier than
rebuilding from 4 -> 5 OSDs. Right?
So better add all new OSDs together on a specific server?
Or not? :-)
MJ
___
ceph-users mailin
happen, so next time we know where to
look first.
Thanks both, for you replies,
MJ
On 11/04/2016 03:26 PM, igor.podo...@ts.fujitsu.com wrote:
Maybe you hit this https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10238 still waits for
merge.
This will occur only if you have ceph-mds process in your cluster
process?
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
, with _direct_ 10G cable connections
(quasi crosslink) between the three hosts. This is very low-budget, as
it gives you 10G speed, without a (relatively) expensive 10G switch.
Working fine here, with each host having a double 10G intel nic, plus a
regular 1G interface.
MJ
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the reply / suggestion!
MJ
On 10/24/2016 10:02 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:41:37 +0200 mj wrote:
Hi,
We have been running xfs on our servers for many years, and we are used
to run a scheduled xfs_fsr during the weekend.
Lately we
are also mostly running xfs. Both of
which (in theory anyway) could be defragmented.
Google doesn't tell me a lot, therefore I'm posing the question here:
What is consensus here? Is it worth running xfs_fsr on VMs and OSDs? (or
perhaps just one of both?)
MJ
Hi,
Interesting reading!
Any chance you could state some of your lessons (if any) you learned..?
I can, for example, imagine your situation would have been much better
with a replication factor of three instead of two..?
MJ
On 10/20/2016 12:09 AM, Kostis Fardelas wrote:
Hello cephers
?
(our cluster is HEALTH_OK, enough disk space, etc, etc)
MJ
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Hi Christian,
Thanks a lot for all your information!
(specially the bit that ceph never reads from the journal, but writes to
osd from memory was new for me)
MJ
On 09/07/2016 03:20 AM, Christian Balzer wrote:
hello,
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:38:45 +0200 lists wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thanks
44 matches
Mail list logo
