Re: lltng enabled by default and qemu apparmor|selinux problems

IF I can add my $0.02 - we were unable to use the libradosstriper library in RHEL6 because it uses the same initialisation tags as librados and lttng does not like that. We had no problems with RHEL7 version of ceph because lttng is not enabled. Please do not re-enable lttng in RHEL7 and later

Fwd: [newstore (again)] how disable double write WAL

Hello everybody, fragment is stored in rocksdb before being written to "/fragments" ? I separed "/db" and "/fragments" but during the bench, everything is writing to "/db" I changed options "newstore_sync_*" without success. Is there any way to write all metadata in "/db" and all data in

Re: Fwd: [newstore (again)] how disable double write WAL

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, David Casier wrote: > Hello everybody, > fragment is stored in rocksdb before being written to "/fragments" ? > I separed "/db" and "/fragments" but during the bench, everything is writing > to "/db" > I changed options "newstore_sync_*" without success. > > Is there any way

Re: Reply: [PATCH] rbd: prevent kernel stack blow up on rbd map

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Caoxudong wrote: > By the way, do you think it's necessary that we add the clone-chain-length > limit in user-space code too? librbd is different in a lot of ways and there isn't a clean separation between the client part (i.e. what is

Re:Re: The questions of data collection and cache tiering in Ceph

Greg, Thank you a lot for your timely reply. These are really helpful for me.I also have some doubts. In Ceph, besides monitoring pool, pg, object, it can also acquire other statistics such as CPU, IOPS, BW. In order to acquire the information , do the Ceph need to call other tools or

ceph branch status

-- All Branches -- Adam C. Emerson 2015-09-14 12:32:18 -0400 wip-cxx11time 2015-09-15 12:09:20 -0400 wip-cxx11concurrency Adam Crume 2014-12-01 20:45:58 -0800 wip-doc-rbd-replay Alfredo Deza

Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

Hi Guy, Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I thought I'd run some tests looking how AsyncMessenger does in comparison. We spoke

Re: wip-addr

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, David Zafman wrote: > I don't understand how encode/decode of entity_addr_t is changing without > versioning in the encode/decode. This means that this branch is changing the > ceph-objectstore-tool export format if CEPH_FEATURE_MSG_ADDR2 is part of the > features. So we

Re: wip-addr

I don't understand how encode/decode of entity_addr_t is changing without versioning in the encode/decode. This means that this branch is changing the ceph-objectstore-tool export format if CEPH_FEATURE_MSG_ADDR2 is part of the features. So we could bump super_header::super_ver if the

Re: Fwd: [newstore (again)] how disable double write WAL

Ok, Great. With these settings : // newstore_max_dir_size = 4096 newstore_sync_io = true newstore_sync_transaction = true newstore_sync_submit_transaction = true newstore_sync_wal_apply = true newstore_overlay_max = 0 // And direct IO in the benchmark tool (fio) I see that the HDD is 100%

Re: lltng enabled by default and qemu apparmor|selinux problems

I have an open PR [1] to dynamically enable LTTng-UST via new config options. This change will hopefully trickle down to older release and will avoid the SElinux / AppArmor issues in the default case (which led to downstream Ubuntu and Fedora disabling LTTng-UST support). Anyone that wants to

Re: Fwd: [newstore (again)] how disable double write WAL

Hi David- On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, David Casier wrote: > Ok, > Great. > > With these settings : > // > newstore_max_dir_size = 4096 > newstore_sync_io = true > newstore_sync_transaction = true > newstore_sync_submit_transaction = true Is this a hard disk? Those settings probably don't make sense

Re: rgw and the next hammer release v0.94.4

Yeah, it should be fine. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, > > After todays private discussion and the merge of > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6161, I will assume the current hammer > branch (7f485ed5aa620fe982561663bf64356b7e2c38f2) is ready for

RE: throttles

dump_historic_ops, slow requests

I have a small ceph cluster (3 nodes, 5 osds each, journals all just partitions on the spinner disks) and I have noticed that when I hit it with a bunch of rados bench clients all doing writes of large (40M objects) with --no-cleanup, the rados bench commands seem to finish OK but I often get

throttles

Looking at the perf counters on my osds, I see wait counts for the following throttle related perf counters: (This is from trying to benchmark using multiple rados bench client processes). throttle-filestore_bytes throttle-msgr_dispatch_throttler-client throttle-osd_client_bytes

enable rbd on ec pool ?

Is there a patch available to enable rbd over an EC pool ? Currently its restricted, 2015-10-12 10:52:23.042085 7f4721ca1840 -1 librbd: error adding image to directory: (95) Operation not supported rbd: create error: (95) Operation not supported Thanks, tomy

Re: lltng enabled by default and qemu apparmor|selinux problems

>>I have an open PR [1] to dynamically enable LTTng-UST via new config options Great ,Thanks Jason ! - Mail original - De: "Jason Dillaman" À: "Paul HEWLETT (Paul)" Cc: "aderumier" , "ceph-devel"

Re: rgw and the next hammer release v0.94.4

Hi, After todays private discussion and the merge of https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6161, I will assume the current hammer branch (7f485ed5aa620fe982561663bf64356b7e2c38f2) is ready for QE to start their own round of testing. If I misinterpreted what you wrote, please speak up and I'll do

hammer branch for v0.94.4 ready for QE

Hi Yuri, The hammer branch for v0.94.4 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/hammer has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam (there are no CephFS related commits according to Greg, hence his approval was not relevant) and is ready for QE. For the record, the head is

Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

resend On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Haomai Wang wrote: > COOL > > Interesting that async messenger will consume more memory than simple, in my > mind I always think async should use less memory. I will give a look at this > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Mark

Re: Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Guy, > > Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator > configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory > allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I