Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: >> Instead of keeping a 24hr loadavg, how about we allow scrubs whenever >> the loadavg is decreasing (or below the threshold)? As long as the >> 1min loadavg is less than the 15min

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: > Instead of keeping a 24hr loadavg, how about we allow scrubs whenever > the loadavg is decreasing (or below the threshold)? As long as the > 1min loadavg is less than the 15min loadavg, we should be ok to allow > new scrubs. If you agree I'll add the

Re: a problem about FileStore::_destroy_collection

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, yangruifeng.09...@h3c.com wrote: > an ENOTEMPTY error mybe happen when removing a pg in previous > versions?but the error is hidden in new versions? When did this change? sage > _destroy_collection maybe return 0 when get_index or prep_delete return < 0; > > is this

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: >>> Instead of keeping a 24hr loadavg, how about we allow scrubs whenever >>> the loadavg is

ceph branch status

-- All Branches -- Adam C. Emerson 2015-10-16 13:49:09 -0400 wip-cxx11time 2015-10-17 13:20:15 -0400 wip-cxx11concurrency Adam Crume 2014-12-01 20:45:58 -0800 wip-doc-rbd-replay Alfredo Deza

[PATCH 2/3] libceph: use list_next_entry instead of list_entry_next

list_next_entry has been defined in list.h, so I replace list_entry_next with it. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- net/ceph/messenger.c | 7 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger.c b/net/ceph/messenger.c index

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> > On Thu, 12 Nov

Nov Ceph Tech Talk Cancelled

Hey cephers, Just letting you know that due to unforeseen circumstances, and then the holidays and travel concerns, the Ceph Tech Talk program will be placed on hold until after the new year. See you all in Jan 2016! http://ceph.com/ceph-tech-talks/ -- Best Regards, Patrick McGarry Director

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Dan van der Ster > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > >>> On

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Dan van der Ster >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Dan van der Ster >> > wrote: >> >>

Re: scrub randomization and load threshold

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Dan van der Ster wrote: Instead of

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

This release QE validation took longer time due to the #11104 additional fixing/testing and discovered related to it issues ##13794, 13622 We agreed to release v0.80.11 based on tests results. Thx YuriW On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Yuri Weinstein wrote: > Summary of

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

Hi Loic and Yuri, issue 11104 can be resolved only after the stable epel[with Boris Fix] is out and tested in teuthology. what Warren has currently done is to tweak the install task to work around this issue inorder to clear the test blocker for v0.80.11. It doesnt count as a "real" fix.

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

Thanks for the update Tamil, that makes sense now :-) On 16/11/2015 23:05, Tamil Muthamizhan wrote: > Hi Loic and Yuri, > > issue 11104 can be resolved only after the stable epel[with Boris Fix] is out > and tested in teuthology. > > what Warren has currently done is to tweak the install task

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

Loic, I am not actually sure about resolving #11104. Warren? Thx YuriW On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > Thanks for the update :-) Should we mark #11104 as resolved ? > > Cheers > > On 16/11/2015 19:45, Yuri Weinstein wrote: >> This

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

Hi Yuri, Thanks for the update :-) Should we mark #11104 as resolved ? Cheers On 16/11/2015 19:45, Yuri Weinstein wrote: > This release QE validation took longer time due to the #11104 > additional fixing/testing and discovered related to it issues ##13794, > 13622 > > We agreed to release

request_queue use-after-free - inode_detach_wb()

Hello, Last week, while running an rbd test which does a lot of maps and unmaps (read losetup / losetup -d) with slab debugging enabled, I hit the attached splat. That 6a byte corresponds to the atomic_long_t count of the percpu_ref refcnt in request_queue::backing_dev_info::wb, pointing to a

Re: Newly added monitor infinitely sync store

I spoke to a leveldb expert, it looks like this is a known pattern on LSM tree data structure - the tail latency for range scan could be far longer than avg/median since it might need to mmap several sst files to get the record. Hi Sage, Do you see any harm to increase the default value for this

Re: Newly added monitor infinitely sync store

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Guang Yang wrote: > I spoke to a leveldb expert, it looks like this is a known pattern on > LSM tree data structure - the tail latency for range scan could be far > longer than avg/median since it might need to mmap several sst files > to get the record. > > Hi Sage, > Do you

Re: Newly added monitor infinitely sync store

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Guang Yang wrote: >> I spoke to a leveldb expert, it looks like this is a known pattern on >> LSM tree data structure - the tail latency for range scan could be far >> longer than avg/median since it might

[PATCH 2/2] fs/ceph: ceph_frag_contains_value can be boolean

This patch makes ceph_frag_contains_value return bool to improve readability due to this particular function only using either one or zero as its return value. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai --- include/linux/ceph/ceph_frag.h | 2 +- 1 file

[PATCH 1/2] fs/ceph: remove unused functions in ceph_frag.h

These functions were introduced in commit 3d14c5d2b ("ceph: factor out libceph from Ceph file system"). Howover, there's no user of these functions since then, so remove them for simplicity. Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai --- include/linux/ceph/ceph_frag.h | 35

radosgw

hi, all Test RGW found, put more than 1G file to bucket.monitor network traffic, detect network traffic fluctuates greatly, even no traffic, hope you can help me. thx, yapeng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to