On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Somnath Roy wrote:
> Greg,
> Updating to the new kernel updating the gcc version too. Recent kernel is
> changing tcmalloc version too, but, 3.16 has old tcmalloc but still
> exhibiting the issue.
> Yes, the behavior is very confusing and compiler is main variabl
Hmm, the only changes I see between those two versions are some pretty
precise cleanups which shouldn't cause this. But it means that a
bisect or determined look should be easy. Can you create a ticket
which includes the exact output you're seeing and the exact versions
you're running?
-Greg
On Mo
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Swarbrick
wrote:
> On 29/06/15 12:51, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>> Yes, we have our own CRC32 checksum because lng ago (before I
>> started!) Sage saw a lot of network corruption that wasn't being
>> caught by the TCP c
We discuss this periodically but not in any great depth. Compression
and dedupe are both best performed at a single point with some sort of
global knowledge, which is very antithetical to Ceph's design.
Blue-sky discussions for dedupe generally center around trying out
some kind of CAS system with
I'm confused. Changing the kernel you're using is changing the
apparent memory usage of a userspace application (Ceph)?
Are you changing the compiler when you change kernel versions?
-Greg
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Somnath Roy wrote:
> Some more data point..
>
> 1. I am not seeing this in
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Dałek, Piotr
> wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-
>>> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Erik G. Burrows
>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 6
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:48:15 +0100
> Gregory Farnum wrote:
>
>> Each object consists of three different data storage areas, all of
>> which are 100% optional: the "bundle of bits" object data, the object
>
found was in ceph-devel archives
>by Gregory Farnum.
>
> - Every casual explanation I found presumes that "an omap" (a set
>of K/V) is associated with an object. But it is not physically in
>the object. So, is there a free-standing omap (set of keys)?
>Or an
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Marcel Lauhoff wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the comments!
>
> Gregory Farnum writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Marcel Lauhoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Gregory Farnum writes:
>>>
>>>>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Barclay Jameson
wrote:
> Has anyone seen this?
Can you describe the kernel you're using, the workload you were
running, the Ceph cluster you're running against, etc?
>
> Jun 22 15:09:27 node kernel: Call Trace:
> Jun 22 15:09:27 node kernel: [] schedule+0x3e/0x90
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Bill Sharer wrote:
> I'm currently running giant on gentoo and was wondering about the stability
> of the api for mapping MDS files to rados objects. The cephfs binary
> complains that it is obsolete for getting layout information, but it also
> provides object l
Did we end up creating a ticket for this? I saw this on one FS run as well.
-Greg
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of. I don't mess with services at all in the log rotation
> stuff I did (we already disabled generic log rotation
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 22/06/2015 17:10, Deneau, Tom wrote:
>> If one has a cluster with some nodes that can run with the ISA plugin
>> and some that cannot, is there a way to define a pool such that the
>> ISA-capable nodes can use the ISA plugin an
Not that I'm aware of. I don't mess with services at all in the log rotation
stuff I did (we already disabled generic log rotation when tests were running).
-Greg
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 12:13 AM, David Zafman wrote:
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Have you changed anything (log rotation related?) that would u
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:03 AM, John Spray wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/2015 14:52, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>>
>> I seem to remember having a short conversation about something like this a
>> few CDS's back... although I think it was 'rados top'. IIRC the basic
>> idea we had was for each OSD to track it's
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> QE validation is almost completed (there are a couple of jobs that are still
> running)
>
> All statis details were summarized in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090
>
> Highlights (by suite/issue):
>
> rados #11914 needs Sam's approval
>
Can you submit this as a Github pull request?
We can take patches to userspace code over the mailing list but
they're more likely to get lost if you go that route.
-Greg
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:53 PM, James Devine wrote:
> Change config fopen to binary mode, allowing LF and CRLF EOL characters
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> One feature we would like is an "rbd top" command that would be like
> top, but show usage of RBD volumes so that we can quickly identify
> high demand RBDs.
>
> Since I haven't done any
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Shishir Gowda wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have uploaded the blueprint for the enhancements we are proposing for ceph
> tier’ing functionality for Jewel release @
>
> http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Tiering-enhacement
>
> Soliciting comments/feedback for the
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Marcel Lauhoff wrote:
>
> Gregory Farnum writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Marcel Lauhoff wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wrote a prototype for an OSD-based object stub feature. An object stub
>>> being an
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
>> I must not be being clear. Tell me if this scenario is possible:
>>
>> * Client A writes to file foo many times and it is journaled to object set 1.
>> * Client B writes to file bar many times and it starts journaling to
>> object set 1, bu
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
>> >> ...Actually, doesn't *not* forcing a coordinated move from one object
>> >> set to another mean that you don't actually have an ordering guarantee
>> >> across tags if you replay the journal objects in order?
>> >
>> > The ordering betwee
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
>> >> >A successful append will indicate whether or not the journal is now full
>> >> >(larger than the max object size), indicating to the client that a new
>> >> >journal object should be used. If the journal is too large, an error
>> >> >co
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
>> > In contrast to the current journal code used by CephFS, the new journal
>> > code will use sequence numbers to identify journal entries, instead of
>> > offsets within the journal.
>>
>> Am I misremembering what actually got done with our
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Paul Von-Stamwitz
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sam
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init
> system is
>> specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise.
>
> I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> I am posting to get wider review/feedback on this draft design. In support
> of the RBD mirroring feature [1], a new client-side journaling class will be
> developed for use by librbd. The implementation is designed to carry opaque
> jou
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> I have a pull request posted at
>
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4809
>
> that updates the mds cap parser and defines a check method. Please take
> a look and see if this makes sense.
Couple comments on the internal interfaces but
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Paul Von-Stamwitz
wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>> > Many people have reported that they need to lower the osd recovery config
>> > option
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> We are getting this error in what looks
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> We are getting this error in what looks like everything that specifies
>> the testing kernel. (That turns out to be almost all of the FS tests
>> and a surpris
We are getting this error in what looks like everything that specifies
the testing kernel. (That turns out to be almost all of the FS tests
and a surprising number of the non-rados runs; e.g. rgw.) I've checked
that the testing branch of ceph-client.git still exists and when
looking at the teutholo
- Original Message -
> From: "Yuri Weinstein"
> To: "Loic Dachary"
> Cc: "Ceph Development" , "Abhishek L"
> , "Alfredo Deza"
> , "Loic Dachary" , "Gregory Farnum"
> , "Sage Weil"
> ,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
> Many people have reported that they need to lower the osd recovery config
> options to minimize the impact of recovery on client io. We are talking
> about changing the defaults as follows:
>
> osd_max_backfills to 1 (from 10)
> osd_recovery
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Gregory Farnum [mailto:g...@gregs42.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:18 PM
>> To: Deneau, Tom
>> Cc: ceph-devel
>> Subject: Re: rados bench throughput wit
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> I've noticed that
>* with a single node cluster with 4 osds
>* and running rados bench rand on that same node so no network traffic
>* with a number of objects small enough so that everything is in the cache
> so no disk traffic
>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This morning I'll schedule a job with priority 50, assuming nobody will get
> mad at me for using such a low priority because the associated bug fix blocks
> the release of v0.94.2 (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11546) and also
> a
ere are no collisions of UID/GIDs between
> tenants in the MDS.
Hmm, that is another thought...
-Greg
>
> Please excuse me if I'm off the rails here, but I think this is one
> thing SMB got right and why I prefer Samba over NFS for multi-tenant
> environments.
> -
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:42 AM, John Spray wrote:
>
>
> On 28/05/2015 06:37, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
>>> Parallelism
>>> ^^^
>>>
>>> Mirroring many images is embarrassin
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Marcel Lauhoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a prototype for an OSD-based object stub feature. An object stub
> being an object with it's data moved /elsewhere/. I hope to get some
> feedback, especially whether I'm on the right path here and if it
> is a feature you ar
Thread necromancy! (Is it still necromancy if it's been waiting in my
inbox the whole time?)
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:54 AM, John Spray wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [this is a re-send of a mail from yesterday that didn't make it, probably
> due to an attachment]
>
> It has always annoyed me that we don't
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
> We've talked about this a bit at ceph developer summits, but haven't
> gone through several parts of the design thoroughly. I'd like to post
> this to a wider audience and get feedback on this draft of a design.
>
> The journal parts are more d
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> > I was just talking to Simo about the longer-term kerberos a
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> > I was just talking to Simo about the longer-term kerberos auth goals to
>> > make sure we don't do something stupid here that we regret later. His
>> > feedback
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> >> Basically I'm still stuck on how any of this lets us lock a user into
>> >> >> a subtree while letting them do what they want within it. I'm
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> QE validation status.
>
> All detailed information is summarized in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11492
>
> Team leads pls review for do "go"-"no-go" decision.
>
> Issues to be considered:
>
> rados - passed ~2.8K jobs, listed issues (#1166
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Tue, 26 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> > That makes sense to me. I suggest
>> >> >
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> > That makes sense to me. I suggest
>> >
>> > - the MDS decides it is allowed. If so, do the presented operation.
>> > Preserve the const-ness of teh cur
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:57 AM, John Spray wrote:
>
>
> On 26/05/2015 07:55, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>
>> the reason for slow file creations is that bonnie++ call fsync(2) after
>> each creat(2). fsync() wait for safe replies of the create requests. MDS
>> sends safe reply when log event for the reque
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >> What would it mean for a user who doesn't have no_root_squash to have
>> >> access to uid 0? Why shou
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> >> > The root_squash option clearly belongs in spec, and Nistha's first patch
>> >> > adds it there. What about the other NFS options.. shoul
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, John Spray wrote:
>> On 21/05/2015 01:14, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > Looking at the MDSAuthCaps again, I think there are a few things we might
>> > need to clean up first. The way it is currently structured, the idea is
>> > that
Yep, looks good.
-Greg
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> The next firefly release as found at
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly
> (68211f695941ee128eb9a7fd0d80b615c0ded6cf) passed the fs suite
> (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#fs). Do you think
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Barclay Jameson
wrote:
> I am trying to find out why boniee++ is choking at the creating files
> sequentially and deleting sequentially on cephfs.
> I enabled mds debug for about 30 seconds and I find a bunch of lines
> like the following:
>
> 2015-05-19 15:54:12.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer
> passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11492#fs), which also
> includes your last minute addition https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4629
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Zhou, Yuan wrote:
> Ceph use crush algorithm to provide the mapping of objects to OSD servers.
> This is great for clients so they could talk to with these OSDs directly.
> However there are some scenarios where the application needs to access the
> crush map, fo
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Steve Capper wrote:
> Hello,
> Whilst testing Ceph 0.94.1 on 64-bit ARM hardware, I noticed that
> switching the kernel PAGE_SIZE from 4KB to 64KB caused an increase by
> a factor of ~6 in the total amount of data written to disk (according
> to blktrace) by the OSD
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Somnath Roy wrote:
> Greg,
> Probably not supported right now, but, wanted to confirm if there is any way
> we can use Ceph cache tier for only writes and reads are forwarded to the
> backend erasure coded pool.
Anything like that would be based on what librados
Yes.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gregory Farnum [mailto:g...@gregs42.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:37 PM
>> To: Deneau, Tom
>> Cc: ceph-devel
>> Subject: Re: ceph tell osd bench
&
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> While running ceph tell osd bench and playing around with the total_bytes and
> block_size parameters,
> I have noticed that if the total_bytes written is less than about 0.5G, the
> bytes/sec is much higher.
> Why is that?
It's probably onl
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> I could really use some eyes on the systemd change proposed here:
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11344
>
> Specifically, on bullet #4 there, should we have a single
> "ceph-mon.service" (implying that users should only run one monitor
> daemon
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Amon Ott wrote:
> Am 17.04.2015 um 03:01 schrieb Gregory Farnum:
>> This looks good to me, but we need an explicit sign-off from you for
>> it. If you can submit it as a PR on Github that's easiest for us, but
>> if not can you send
We’ve been hard at work on CephFS over the last year since Firefly was
released, and with Hammer coming out it seemed like a good time to go over some
of the big developments users will find interesting. Much of this is cribbed
from John’s Linux Vault talk
(http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sit
This looks good to me, but we need an explicit sign-off from you for
it. If you can submit it as a PR on Github that's easiest for us, but
if not can you send it in git email patch form? :)
-Greg
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Amon Ott wrote:
> Hello Ceph!
>
> The Ceph init script (src/init-ceph
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote:
>> On 04/16/2015 01:17 AM, Somnath Roy wrote:
>> > Here is the data with omap separated to another SSD and after 1000GB of fio
>> > writes (same profile)..
>> >
>> > omap writes:
>> > -
>> >
>>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Mark Kirkwood
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Building without --enable-debug produces:
>
> ceph_fuse.cc: In member function ‘virtual void* main(int, const char**,
> const char**)::RemountTest::entry()’:
> ceph_fuse.cc:146:15: warning: ignoring return value of ‘int system(const
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 17/04/2015 00:44, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> The next giant release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:38 PM, 池信泽 wrote:
> hi, all:
>
> Now, ceph should received all ack message from remote and then
> reply ack to client, What
>
> about directly reply to client if primary has been received some of
> them. Below is the request
>
> trace among osd. Primary wait for secon
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> The next giant release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/giant
> passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11153#fs). Do you think
> it is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ?
>
> Note that it
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 13/04/2015 19:04, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>> A while ago this came up in #ceph-devel and I wanted to bring it to a
>>> wider
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> A while ago this came up in #ceph-devel and I wanted to bring it to a
> wider audience.
>
> Should we stop the convention of adding the "backport: " tags in Git?
>
> Loic brought up the point that this data is essentially immutable after
> we me
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> With 0.93, I tried
> ceph tell 'osd.*' injectargs '--ms_crc_data=false' '--ms_crc_header=false'
>
> and saw the changes reflected in ceph admin-daemon
>
> But having done that, perf top still shows time being spent in crc32 routines.
> Is th
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Haomai Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote:
>> >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote:
>> >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote:
>> >> > >
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:09 AM, kernel neophyte
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, kernel neophyte wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > My guess is that it's because the gmock directory has been replace
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Ta Ba Tuan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have ever to setup the cache-pool for my pool.
> But had some proplems about cache-pool running, so I removed the cache pool
> from My CEPH Cluster.
>
> The DATA pool currently don't use cache pool, but "lfor" setting still be
> app
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Resurrecting this thread since we need to make a decision soon. The
> opinions broke down like so:
>
> A - me
> B - john
> C - alex
> D - loic (and drop release names), yehuda, ilya
> openstack - dmsimard
>
> So, most people seem to like D
g on the Ceph
version you're running you can also examine the mds perfcounters
(http://ceph.com/docs/master/dev/perf_counters/) and the op history
(dump_ops_in_flight etc) and look for any operations which are
noticeably slow.
-Greg
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Farnum w
et to explore a bit what client sessions
there are and what they have permissions on and check; otherwise
you'll have to figure it out from the client side.
-Greg
>
> Thanks for the input!
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> So this is exactly
So this is exactly the same test you ran previously, but now it's on
faster hardware and the test is slower?
Do you have more data in the test cluster? One obvious possibility is
that previously you were working entirely in the MDS' cache, but now
you've got more dentries and so it's kicking data
ds:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvmexh9impd3f3c/forgreg.tar.gz?dl=0
>
> In this run, only client 1 starts doing the extra lookups.
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Michael Sevilla
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> I'm not sure why crushtool --test --simulate doesn't match what the
> cluster actually does, but the cluster seems to be executing the rules
> even though crushtool doesn't. Just kind of stinks that you have to
> test the rules on actual da
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Alistair Israel wrote:
> Thank you Loïc and Sage for the encouragement!
>
> Yes, we'll look into CMake if it simplifies managing the build.
> However, a "stretch goal" is to possibly have the same autotools build
> scripts generate .exe and .dll files from the same
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm still trying to find why there is much more write operations on
> filestore since Emperor/Firefly than from Dumpling.
Do you have any history around this? It doesn't sound familiar,
although I bet it's because of the WBThrottl
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When scheduling suites that are low priority (giant for instance at
> http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-03-23_01:09:31-rados-giant---basic-multi/),
> the --priority 1000 is set because (if I remember correctly) this is the
> standar
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:46 AM, shylesh kumar wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I was going through this simplified crush algorithm given in ceph website.
>
> def crush(pg):
>all_osds = ['osd.0', 'osd.1', 'osd.2', ...]
>result = []
># size is the number of copies; primary+replicas
>while len(res
/pgcalc/.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> Matt Conner
> keepertechnology
> matt.con...@keepertech.com
> (240) 461-2657
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Matt Conner wrote:
>> I'm working with a 6 rack, 18 server (3 racks of 2 servers , 3 racks
>> of 4 servers), 640 OSD cluster and have run into an issue when failing
>> a storage server or rack where the OSDs are not getting
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:55 PM, David Zafman wrote:
>
> During upgrade testing an error occurred because ceph-objectstore-tool found
> during import on a Firefly node the compat_features from a export from
> Hammer.
>
> There are 2 new feature bits set as shown in the error message:
>
> Export ha
Yeah. If this has gotten easier it's fine, but asphyxiate required a
*lot* of tooling that I'd rather we not require as developer build
deps. I'd imagine we can just produce them as part of the Jenkins
build procedure or something?
-Greg
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM, David Zafman wrote:
>
> I
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ning Yao wrote:
>> 2015-03-16 22:06 GMT+08:00 Haomai Wang :
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Xinze Chi wrote:
>> >> How to process the write request in primary?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> 2015-03-16 22:01 GMT+08:0
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> Hi Sage,
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, David McBride wrote:
>>> On 09/02/15 15:31, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>>
>>> > So, memory usage of an
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Csaba Henk wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Danny Al-Gaaf"
>> To: "Csaba Henk" , "OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:26:52 PM
>> Subject: Re:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 01/03/2015 06:00, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> The fs teuthology suite for the next firefly release as found in
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> The fs teuthology suite for the next firefly release as found in
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/firefly-backports came back with three
> failures : http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10641#fs. Do you think it is ready
> for
nger, I
> added a inject-error stress test for lossless_peer_reuse policy, it
> can reproduce it easily
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:18 AM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:18 AM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:17 PM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
Sorry for the delayed response.
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 3:48
- Original Message -
> From: "John Spray"
> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, z...@redhat.com, "Gregory Farnum"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:23:21 PM
> Subject: ceph-fuse remount issues
>
>
> Background: a while ago, we fou
101 - 200 of 1363 matches
Mail list logo
