The pool will not actually go read only. All read and write requests will
block until both osds are back up. If I were you, I would use min_size=2
and change it to 1 temporarily if needed to do maintenance or
troubleshooting where down time is not an option.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 5:31 PM Georgios Dimitrakakis <gior...@acmac.uoc.gr>
> All right! Thank you very much Jack!
> The way I understand this is that it's not necessarily a bad thing. I
> mean as long as it doesn't harm any data or
> cannot cause any other issue.
> Unfortunately my scenario consists of only two OSDs therefore there is
> a replication factor of 2 and min_size=1.
> What I am trying to figure out is if it's more dangerous to have
> min_size=2 rather than 1 in the above scenario and if it gives me any
> I am already aware of the *golden* rule about the minimum number of
> replicas (3) but the cluster will be reformed soon and until then I
> would like to know if it's better to go with min_size=2 or not.
> > If min_size == size, a single OSD failure will place your pool read
> > only
> > On 02/22/2018 11:06 PM, Georgios Dimitrakakis wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >> I would like to know if there are additional risks when running CEPH
> >> with "Min Size" equal to "Replicated Size" for a given pool.
> >> What are the drawbacks and what could be go wrong in such a
> >> scenario?
> >> Best regards,
> >> G.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ceph-users mailing list
> >> email@example.com
> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users mailing list