Hi,
I just re-ran my test on a lab cluster (19.2.3) and have a default
zonegroup/zone. Then I add a new placement to zg/zone successfully
("dp-extra1" is the new placement):
soc9-ceph:~ # radosgw-admin zone placement list
[
{
"key": "default-placement",
"val": {
"index_pool": "default.rgw.buckets.index",
"storage_classes": {
"STANDARD": {
"data_pool": "default.rgw.buckets.data"
}
},
"data_extra_pool": "default.rgw.buckets.non-ec",
"index_type": 0
}
},
{
"key": "dp-extra1",
"val": {
"index_pool": "dp-ceph-rgw-custom-index",
"storage_classes": {
"STANDARD": {
"data_pool": "dp-ceph-rgw-custom-data"
}
},
"data_extra_pool": "dp-ceph-rgw-custom-non-ec",
"index_type": 0
}
}
]
But when I try to create a bucket in the Dashboard there's no custom
placement, only the default placement.
Is this a limitation in the Dashboard? If it is, is there a way to
create a bucket via CLI to use a specific placement target?
Thanks!
Eugen
Zitat von Daniel Parkes <[email protected]>:
Hi,
Yes, we have it in the docs,
https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/radosgw/placement/#placement-targets :
[image: image.png]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 2:06 PM Eugen Block via ceph-users <
[email protected]> wrote:
It didn't work in my tests without a realm, so I don't believe grok
:-D But I'd love to be proven wrong.
Zitat von Rok Jaklič <[email protected]>:
> There is:
>
> [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin realm list
> {
> "default_info": "",
> "realms": []
> }
> [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin realm get-default
> No default realm is set
> [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin period list
> {
> "periods": []
> }
> [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin zonegroup list
> {
> "default_info": "b1e0d55c-f7cb-4e73-b1cb-6cffa1fd6578",
> "zonegroups": [
> "default"
> ]
> }
> [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin zone list
> {
> "default_info": "c2c70444-7a41-4acd-a0d0-9f87d324ec72",
> "zones": [
> "default"
> ]
> }
>
> Since there is no realm set, I can skip radosgw-admin period update
> --commit entirely if grok is to be believed?
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 11:54 AM Eugen Block via ceph-users <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From my understanding the new placement will not be available if the
>> period can't be updated. Your zonegroup/zone configuration seems off
>> compared to the test cluster. Is there a default zonegroup/zone?
>>
>> Zitat von Rok Jaklič via ceph-users <[email protected]>:
>>
>> > So I've created a little plan on how to create a new profile and
assign
>> new
>> > S3 users to EC 8+3 pool. Idea is that all new s3 users are using a new
>> > pool, and old ones pool with EC 3+2 and data is intact.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > ceph osd erasure-code-profile set ec-83-profile k=8 m=3
>> > crush-failure-domain=host
>> > ceph osd pool create rgw.buckets.ec-83.data 256 erasure ec-83-profile
>> > ceph osd pool application enable rgw.buckets.ec-83.data rgw
>> >
>> > radosgw-admin zonegroup placement add --placement-id=ec-83-placement
>> >
>> > radosgw-admin zone placement add \
>> > --placement-id ec-83-placement \
>> > --data-pool rgw.buckets.ec-83.data \
>> > --index-pool default.rgw.buckets.index \
>> > --data-extra-pool default.rgw.buckets.non-ec \
>> > --placement-index-type 0
>> >
>> > radosgw-admin period update --commit
>> >
>> > # restart rgw
>> > systemctl restart ceph-radosgw.target
>> > # verify the new placement
>> > radosgw-admin zone get | grep -A 20 "ec-83-placement"
>> >
>> > # for new s3 users, set the default placement
>> > radosgw-admin user create --uid=<user> --tenant=<tenant>
>> > --placement-id=ec-83-placement
>> > ---
>> >
>> > It seems to work on "test cluster", however I get an error on:
>> >
>> > [root@a8-mon1 ~]# radosgw-admin period update --commit
>> > cannot commit period: period does not have a master zone of a master
>> > zonegroup
>> > failed to commit period: (22) Invalid argument
>> >
>> > Do I actually need to run this command or is "rgw restart" enough?
>> >
>> > Any comments appriciated.
>> >
>> > Rok
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 12:42 PM Rok Jaklič via ceph-users <
>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> we expanded the cluster to 12 nodes with 28 osds, but we are still
>> running
>> >> on EC 3+2, since we started cluster with 6 nodes. We would like to
>> change
>> >> it to EC 6+3 or even EC 8+3? Is this reasonable or will 8+3 take too
>> much
>> >> CPU/network capacities? Should I use isa/isa-l instead of jerasure?
>> >>
>> >> Can anyone share experience with 8+3?
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Rok
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected]
>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected]
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
