Hi David,
I also see only the RBD pool getting created by default in 0.93.
With regards to resizing placement groups, I believe you can use:
ceph osd pool set [pool name] pg_num
ceph osd pool set [pool name] pgp_num
Be forewarned, this will trigger data migration.
Cheers,
Lincol
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:46:50 -0700 Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> David,
>
> You will need to up the limit of open files in the linux system. Check
> /etc/security/limits.conf. it is explained somewhere in the docs and the
> autostart scripts 'fixes' the issue for most people. When I did a manual
> deplo
David,
You will need to up the limit of open files in the linux system. Check
/etc/security/limits.conf. it is explained somewhere in the docs and the
autostart scripts 'fixes' the issue for most people. When I did a manual
deploy for the same reasons you are, I ran into this too.
Robert LeBlanc
Thank you all for such wonderful feedback.
Thank you to John Spray for putting me on the right track. I now see
that the cephfs aspect of the project is being de-emphasised, so that
the manual deployment instructions tell how to set up the object store,
and then the cephfs is a separate issue tha
On 03/04/15 22:50, Travis Rhoden wrote:
> [...]
> Thanks for this feedback. I share a lot of your sentiments,
> especially that it is good to understand as much of the system as you
> can. Everyone's skill level and use-case is different, and
> ceph-deploy is targeted more towards PoC use-cases.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Lionel Bouton
wrote:
> On 03/04/15 22:18, John Spray wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 20:27, Datatone Lists wrote:
>>> [...] [Please don't mention ceph-deploy]
>> This kind of comment isn't very helpful unless there is a specific
>> issue with ceph-deploy that is preventing
On 03/04/15 22:18, John Spray wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 20:27, Datatone Lists wrote:
>> [...] [Please don't mention ceph-deploy]
> This kind of comment isn't very helpful unless there is a specific
> issue with ceph-deploy that is preventing you from using it, and
> causing you to resort to manual ste
On 04/03/2015 20:27, Datatone Lists wrote:
I have been following ceph for a long time. I have yet to put it into
service, and I keep coming back as btrfs improves and ceph reaches
higher version numbers.
I am now trying ceph 0.93 and kernel 4.0-rc1.
Q1) Is it still considered that btrfs is not
I can't help much on the MDS front, but here is some answers and my
view on some of it.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Datatone Lists wrote:
> I have been following ceph for a long time. I have yet to put it into
> service, and I keep coming back as btrfs improves and ceph reaches
> higher versi
I have been following ceph for a long time. I have yet to put it into
service, and I keep coming back as btrfs improves and ceph reaches
higher version numbers.
I am now trying ceph 0.93 and kernel 4.0-rc1.
Q1) Is it still considered that btrfs is not robust enough, and that
xfs should be used in
10 matches
Mail list logo
