> -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-users [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Spray > Sent: 07 March 2017 01:45 > To: Christian Balzer <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] A Jewel in the rough? (cache tier bugs and > documentation omissions) > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Christian Balzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > It's now 10 months after this thread: > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg27497.html (plus next > > message) > > > > and we're at the fifth iteration of Jewel and still > > > > osd_tier_promote_max_objects_sec > > and > > osd_tier_promote_max_bytes_sec > > > > are neither documented (master or jewel), nor mentioned in the > > changelogs and most importantly STILL default to the broken reverse > > settings above. > > Is there a pull request?
Mark fixed it in this commit, but looks like it was never marked for backport to Jewel. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/793ceac2f3d5a2c404ac50569c44a21de6001b62 I will look into getting the documentation updated for these settings. > > John > > > Anybody coming from Hammer or even starting with Jewel and using cache > > tiering will be having a VERY bad experience. > > > > Christian > > -- > > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > > [email protected] Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications > > http://www.gol.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
