, 2015 13:15
To: Don Doerner
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
So it sounds like I should figure out at 'how many nodes' do I need to increase
pg_num to 4096, and again for 8192, and increase those incrementally when as I
add more hosts, correc
zation issue, I believe.
>
>
>
> -don-
>
>
>
> *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Don Doerner
> *Sent:* 04 March, 2015 12:49
> *To:* Kyle Hutson
> *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] New
That did it.
'step set_choose_tries 200' fixed the problem right away.
Thanks Yann!
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Yann Dupont wrote:
>
> Le 04/03/2015 21:48, Don Doerner a écrit :
>
> Hmmm, I just struggled through this myself. How many racks do you have?
> If not more than 8, you might w
ailto:kylehut...@ksu.edu]
> *Sent:* 04 March, 2015 12:43
> *To:* Don Doerner
> *Cc:* Ceph Users
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
>
>
>
> It wouldn't let me simply change the pg_num, giving
>
> Error EEXIST: specified pg_num 2048 <= curr
zation
issue, I believe.
-don-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Don
Doerner
Sent: 04 March, 2015 12:49
To: Kyle Hutson
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
Hmmm, I just struggled through this myself. How many racks
Le 04/03/2015 21:48, Don Doerner a écrit :
Hmmm, I just struggled through this myself.How many racks do you
have?If not more than 8, you might want to make your failure domain
smaller?I.e., maybe host?That, at least, would allow you to debug the
situation…
-don-
Hello, I think I already
12:43
To: Don Doerner
Cc: Ceph Users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
It wouldn't let me simply change the pg_num, giving
Error EEXIST: specified pg_num 2048 <= current 8192
But that's not a big deal, I just deleted the pool and recreated with 'ceph osd
pool cr
Don Doerner wrote:
> Oh duh… OK, then given a 4+4 erasure coding scheme, 14400/8 is 1800, so
> try 2048.
>
>
>
> -don-
>
>
>
> *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Don Doerner
> *Sent:* 04 March, 2015 12:14
> *To:* Kyle H
Oh duh… OK, then given a 4+4 erasure coding scheme, 14400/8 is 1800, so try
2048.
-don-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Don
Doerner
Sent: 04 March, 2015 12:14
To: Kyle Hutson; Ceph Users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
In this case
Hutson
Sent: 04 March, 2015 12:06
To: Ceph Users
Subject: [ceph-users] New EC pool undersized
Last night I blew away my previous ceph configuration (this environment is
pre-production) and have 0.87.1 installed. I've manually edited the crushmap so
it down looks like
https://dpaste.de/OLEa&
Last night I blew away my previous ceph configuration (this environment is
pre-production) and have 0.87.1 installed. I've manually edited the
crushmap so it down looks like https://dpaste.de/OLEa
I currently have 144 OSDs on 8 nodes.
After increasing pg_num and pgp_num to a more suitable 1024 (d
11 matches
Mail list logo
