Stable releases preparation temporarily stalled

Hi, The stable releases (hammer, infernalis) did not make progress in the past few weeks because we can't run tests. Before xmas the following happened: * the sepia lab was migrated and we discovered the OpenStack teuthology backend can't run without it (that was a problem during a few days

Re: fixing jenkins builds on pull requests

the last 300 jobs for forensic analysis (about one week worth) * disable reporting to github pull requests until the above are resolved (all failures were false negative). Cheers On 23/12/2015 10:11, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Alfredo, > > I forgot to mention that the ./run-make-che

Re: New "make check" job for Ceph pull requests

Hi, For the record the pending issues that prevent the "make check" job (https://jenkins.ceph.com/job/ceph-pull-requests/) from running can be found at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14172 Cheers On 23/12/2015 21:05, Alfredo Deza wrote: > Hi all, > > As of yesterday (Tuesday Dec 22nd) we

jenkins on ceph pull requests: clarify which Operating System is used

Hi Alfredo, I see a make check slave currently runs on jessie and I think to remember it ran on trusty slaves before. It's a good thing operating systems are mixed but there does not seem to be a clear indication about which operating system is used. For instance regarding:

fixing jenkins builds on pull requests

Hi Alfredo, I forgot to mention that the ./run-make-check.sh run currently has no known false negative on CentOS 7. By that I mean that if run on master 100 times, it will succeed 100 times. This is good to debug the jenkins builds on pull requests as we know all problems either come from the

Re: Time to move the make check bot to jenkins.ceph.com

Hi, The make check bot moved to jenkins.ceph.com today and ran it's first successfull job. You will no longer see comments from the bot: it will update the github status instead, which is less intrusive. Cheers On 21/12/2015 11:13, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, > > The make check bot

Time to move the make check bot to jenkins.ceph.com

Hi, The make check bot is broken in a way that I can't figure out right now. Maybe now is the time to move it to jenkins.ceph.com ? It should not be more difficult than launching the run-make-check.sh script. It does not need network or root access. Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel

v10.0.1 Contributor credits

41665 Mykola Golub <mgo...@mirantis.com> 51390 Greg Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> 61061 Loic Dachary <ldach...@redhat.com> 7 910 David Coles <dco...@gaikai.com> 8 771 Rohan Mars <c...@rohanmars.com> 9 591 John Spray <j

Re: puzzling disapearance of /dev/sdc1

, BLKSSZGET, 512)= 0 ioctl(3, BLKSSZGET, 512)= 0 This leads me to the conclusion that the difference is in how the kernel reacts to these ioctl. What do you think ? Cheers On 17/12/2015 17:26, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Loic Dachary

Re: puzzling disapearance of /dev/sdc1

On 18/12/2015 16:31, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> It turns out that sgdisk 0.8.6 -i 2 /dev/vdb removes partitions and re-adds >> them on CentOS 7 with a 3.10.0-229.11.1.el7 kern

Re: puzzling disapearance of /dev/sdc1

disable it entirely. Device Mapper devices are excluded from this logic. On 18/12/2015 17:32, Loic Dachary wrote: > >>> AFAICT udevd started doing this in v214. > > Do you have a specific commit / changelog entry in mind ? I'd like to add it > to the co

Re: puzzling disapearance of /dev/sdc1

Hi Sage, On 17/12/2015 14:31, Sage Weil wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> This is another puzzling behavior (the log of all commands is at >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14094#note-4). in a nutshell, after a >> series of sgdi

Re: understanding partprobe failure

On 17/12/2015 16:49, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> I'm seeing a partprobe failure right after a disk was zapped with sgdisk >> --clear --mbrtogpt -- /dev/vdb: >> >> p

Re: [ceph-users] v10.0.0 released

The script handles UTF-8 fine, the copy/paste is at fault here ;-) On 24/11/2015 07:59, piotr.da...@ts.fujitsu.com wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil >> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015

understanding partprobe failure

Hi Ilya, I'm seeing a partprobe failure right after a disk was zapped with sgdisk --clear --mbrtogpt -- /dev/vdb: partprobe /dev/vdb failed : Error: Partition(s) 1 on /dev/vdb have been written, but we have been unable to inform the kernel of the change, probably because it/they are in use.

puzzling disapearance of /dev/sdc1

Hi Ilya, This is another puzzling behavior (the log of all commands is at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14094#note-4). in a nutshell, after a series of sgdisk -i commands to examine various devices including /dev/sdc1, the /dev/sdc1 file disappears (and I think it will showup again although I

Re: cmake

Hi, On 16/12/2015 18:33, Sage Weil wrote: > The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use > it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. > Not having make check is a big one, but I think the hackery required to > get that going points to

Re: [Ceph-qa] Bug #13191 CentOS 7 multipath test fail because libdevmapper version must be >= 1.02.89

[redirecting to ceph-devel]. Hi, On 14/12/2015 21:20, Abe Asraoui wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone know if this bug # 13191 has been resolved ?? http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13191 has not been resolved. Could you please comment on it ? A short explanation about why you need it resolved will

misc: ignore some unusable block devices

Hi Robin, I removed misc: ignore some unusable block devices 9c5eaeccb807d103884f46d174798dd982092696 from the openstack branch because it fails on CentOS 7 with the following. Could you please make a new pull request with it so we can keep testing it there ? Thanks ! 2015-12-14T14:37:36.305

Stable release HOWTO: hunt for lost page

Hi, It looks like we've lost http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_triage_incoming_backport_pull_requests . We can re-write it, of course, it's not that complex. But looking at the index I can't find it ( http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/index ) and the

Re: Stable release HOWTO: hunt for lost page

erfect ! It has not changed much in the past few month, I can't think of something we added that would be missing. > Please review it, in case there are any changes to it. > > Disabling the page deletion sounds like a good idea. Done. Cheers > > Thanks > Abhishek > > On Mon, D

Re: misc: ignore some unusable block devices

On 14/12/2015 19:18, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Robin, >> >> I removed misc: ignore some unusable block devices >> 9c5eaeccb807d103884f46d174798dd982092696 from the openstack branch >

Re: new OSD re-using old OSD id fails to boot

ld that help fix http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13988 ? > David > > On 12/5/15 8:49 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> >> The problem described at "new OSD re-using old OSD id fails to boot" >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13988 consist

Re: new OSD re-using old OSD id fails to boot

On 09/12/2015 11:39, Wei-Chung Cheng wrote: > Hi Loic, > > I try to reproduce this problem on my CentOS7. > I can not do the same issue. > This is my version: > ceph version 10.0.0-928-g8eb0ed1 (8eb0ed1dcda9ee6180a06ee6a4415b112090c534) > Would you describe more detail? I reproduced the

Re: testing the /dev/cciss/c0d0 device names

Hi, On 06/12/2015 20:15, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> ceph-disk has special handling for device names like /dev/cciss/c0d1 [1] and >> it was partially broken when support

new OSD re-using old OSD id fails to boot

Hi Sage, The problem described at "new OSD re-using old OSD id fails to boot" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13988 consistently fails the ceph-disk suite on master. I wonder if it could be a side effect of the recent optimizations introduced in the monitor ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan

testing the /dev/cciss/c0d0 device names

Hi Ilya, ceph-disk has special handling for device names like /dev/cciss/c0d1 [1] and it was partially broken when support for device mapper was introduced. Ideally there would be a way to test that support when running the ceph-disk suite [2]. Do you know of a way to do that without having

proposal to run Ceph tests on pull requests

Hi Ceph, TL;DR: a ceph-qa-suite bot running on pull requests is sustainable and is an incentive for contributors to use teuthology-openstack independently When a pull request is submitted, it is compiled, some tests are run[1] and the result is added to the pull request to confirm that it does

Re: CodingStyle on existing code

On 01/12/2015 14:10, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Hi, > > While working on mon/PGMonitor.cc I see that there is a lot of > inconsistency on the code. > > A lot of whitespaces, indentation which is not correct, well, a lot of > things. > > Is this something we want to fix? With some scripts we

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >>>>

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 23:55, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >>&g

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Ceph, >> >> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >> >> teuthology: --suite rbd >> >> to s

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

Hi Joao, On 29/11/2015 12:51, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote: > On 11/28/2015 03:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Ceph, >> >> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >> >> teuthology: --suite rbd >> >> to state that th

RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

Hi Ceph, An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: teuthology: --suite rbd to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It could be parsed by bots and humans. It would make it easy and cost effective to run partial teuthology suites

Re: v0.80.11 QE validation status

k 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. > > Regards, > Tamil > > - Original Message - > From: "Yuri Weinstein" <ywein...@redhat.com> > To: "L

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

Re: Firefly EOL date - still Jan 2016?

Hi Ken, On 13/11/2015 22:15, Ken Dreyer wrote: > Hi folks, > > This is mainly directed at the stable release team members > (http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO), since > they are the ones doing the work of backporting :) > > On http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/releases/,

Backlog for the Ceph tracker

Hi Sam, I crafted a custom query that could be used as a replacement for the backlog plugin http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/issues?query_id=86 It displays issues that are features or tasks, grouped by target version and ordered by priority. I also created a v10.0.0 version so we can

Re: Backlog for the Ceph tracker

But http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/agile_versions looks better :-) On 10/11/2015 16:28, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Sam, > > I crafted a custom query that could be used as a replacement for the backlog > plugin > >http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/

Re: Backlog for the Ceph tracker

On 10/11/2015 16:34, Loic Dachary wrote: > But http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/agile_versions looks better :-) It appears to be a crippled version of a proprietary product http://www.redminecrm.com/projects/agile/pages/last My vote would be to de-install it since it is even l

Preparing infernalis v9.2.1

Hi Abhishek, I created the issue to track the progress of infernalis v9.2.1 at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13750 and assigned it to you. There are a dozen issues waiting to be backported and another dozen waiting to be tested in an integration branch. Good luck with driving your first

Re: How to modify affiliation?

Hi, You can submit a patch to https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/.organizationmap Cheers On 10/11/2015 09:21, chen kael wrote: > Hi,ceph-dev > who can tell me how to modify my affiliation? > Thanks! > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the

Re: a home for backport snippets

/merge_requests/8/diffs#66bd83c5111f0ccc884ad791c4acaa926ab52c2a_0_64 [7] Jenkins Job Builder http://docs.openstack.org/infra/jenkins-job-builder/ [8] Configuration of your builds with .gitlab-ci.yml http://doc.gitlab.com/ci/yaml/README.html On 05/11/2015 14:20, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, > &

make check bot resumed

Hi, The machine sending notifications for the make check bot failed during the week-end. It was rebooted and it should resume its work. The virtual machine was actually re-built because the underlying OpenStack cloud was unable to find the volume used for root after a hard reboot. There were

Re: make check bot resumed

, it is enough to rebase and repush it. Cheers On 09/11/2015 15:33, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, > > The machine sending notifications for the make check bot failed during the > week-end. It was rebooted and it should resume its work. > > The virtual machine was actuall

a home for backport snippets

Hi, Today, Nathan and I briefly discussed the idea of collecting the backport snippets that are archived in the wiki at http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO. We all have copies on our local disks and although they don't diverge much, this is not very sustainable. It was

Re: a home for backport snippets

o that I can make you an admin. Cheers > > [1] > http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_populate_the_integration_branch > > Thanks > Abhishek > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >

Re: civetweb upstream/downstream divergence

Hi Pete, On 30/10/2015 13:57, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:58:07 -0700 > Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > >> We should definitely do it. We're based off civetweb 1.6, and there >> was no official civetweb version for quite a while, but 1.7 was tagged >> a few

Re: Ceph erasure coding

ese chunks (sub-packets) on each osd. Interesting :-) Could you share the URL to the code of this erasure code plugin ? Cheers > > 2015-10-22 18:59 GMT+02:00 Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org>: >> Hi, >> >> On 22/10/2015 18:44, Kjetil Babington wrote: >>> Hi,

rbd and the next firefly release v0.80.11

Hi Josh, The next firefly release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly passed the rbd suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-105 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-120). Do you think the firefly branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ?

rados and the next firefly release v0.80.11

Hi Sam, The next firefly release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly passed the rados suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-110). Do you think the firefly branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

rgw and the next firefly release v0.80.11

Hi Yehuda, The next firefly release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly passed the rgw suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-111). Do you think the firefly branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

cephfs and the next firefly release v0.80.11

Hi Greg, The next firefly release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-112). Do you think the firefly branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Re: rados and the next firefly release v0.80.11

looks good to me On 23/10/2015 22:13, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Sam, > > The next firefly release as found at > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/firefly passed the rados suite > (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-110). Do you think the firefly > branch is rea

Re: Ceph erasure coding

Hi, On 22/10/2015 18:44, Kjetil Babington wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question about the capabilities of the erasure coding API in > Ceph. Let's say that I have 10 data disks and 4 parity disks, is it > possible to create an erasure coding plugin which creates 20 data > chunks and 8 parity chunks,

Re: osd activation under 9.1.0

On 16/10/2015 23:09, Deneau, Tom wrote: > Using 9.1.0 I am getting the error shown below at ceph-deploy osd activate > time. > > + ceph-deploy --overwrite-conf osd activate > Intel-2P-Sandy-Bridge-04:/var/local//dev/sdf2:/dev/sdf1 Is: /var/local//dev/sdf2 intentional ? Note that ceph now

Re: make check bot delays

On 15/10/2015 11:45, Dałek, Piotr wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Loic Dachary >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:09 AM >> >> Hi, >> >> TL

Re: make check bot delays

100% of one core during 10 minutes between two jobs, apparently to do things on the archived runs). What I can't really explain is that it also kept 300 jobs two month ago and that was no issue. What changed in between... I have no clue. The bot is catching up. Cheers On 15/10/2015 00:06, Loic

make check bot delays

Hi, TL;DR: the jenkins instance running make check bot hangs daily, looking for a solution In the past two weeks the make check bot has experienced troubles for which I've been unable to find a cause. The same jenkins instance running it for the past nine month now freezes at random times.

Preparing the suites to run with the OpenStack backend

Hi Josh, Yehuda and Greg, It is my understanding that there is a chance we may need to use the OpenStack teuthology backend as a backup while machines in the sepia lab migrate from one data center to another. Zack has setup a new teuthology cluster that will transparently behave as the cluster

Re: enable rbd on ec pool ?

Hi Tomy, On 13/10/2015 06:13, Tomy Cheru wrote: > Is there a patch available to enable rbd over an EC pool ? You have to go through a cache tier instead of using it directly. See http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ for more information. Cheers > > Currently its

Re: enable rbd on ec pool ?

gt; Thanks, > tomy > > -Original Message- > From: Loic Dachary [mailto:l...@dachary.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:47 PM > To: Tomy Cheru; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: enable rbd on ec pool ? > > Hi Tomy, > > On 13/10/2015 06:13, Tomy Cheru wrot

Re: Fwd: monitor crashing

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/compare/hammer...wip-ecpool-hammer In order to bypass the crush verification, you could: ceph tell mon.* injectargs --crushtool /bin/true Cheers On 13/10/2015 15:41, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Luis Periquito wrote: >> the store.db dir is 3.4GB big :(

Re: pre-Infernalis ceph-disk bug

Hi, On 14/10/2015 00:02, Jeremy Hanmer wrote: > I think I've found a bug in ceph-disk when running on Ubuntu 14.04 > (and I believe 12.04 as well, but haven't confirmed) and using > --dmcrypt. > > The problem is that when update_partition() is called, partprobe is > used to re-read the partition

Re: rgw and the next hammer release v0.94.4

what's needed ;-) Cheers On 02/10/2015 22:31, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Yehuda, > > The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer > passed the rgw suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#note-58). > Do you think the hammer branch is ready

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: CephFS and the next hammer release v0.94.4

On 08/10/2015 22:50, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer >> passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.

CephFS and the next hammer release v0.94.4

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/12701#note-66). Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers P.S.

Preparing hammer v0.94.5

Hi Abhishek, The v0.94.5 version was added to the list of versions and you should now be able to create the issue to track its progress. Since v0.94.4 is in the process of being tested, most of the ~50 backports in flight[1] will actually be for v0.94.5 and we can start testing them. The worst

Driving the first infernalis point release v9.2.1

Nathan & Abhisheks (are we even allowed to do that ? ;-) Immediately after the first infernalis release v9.2.0 [1], we will start preparing the v9.2.1 point release. Would one of you be willing to drive it ? Cheers [1] Release numbers conventions

Re: Preparing hammer v0.94.5

On 03/10/2015 19:47, Abhishek Varshney wrote: > Hi Loic, > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Abhishek, >> >> The v0.94.5 version was added to the list of versions and you should now be >> able to cre

rbd and the next hammer release v0.94.4

Hi Josh, The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer passed the rbd suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#note-61). Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers P.S.

rgw and the next hammer release v0.94.4

Hi Yehuda, The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer passed the rgw suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#note-58). Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers P.S.

Re: Teuthology Integration to native openstack

_drive" }, { "Value": "2015-09-30T08:37:01Z", "Field": "created" }, { "Value": "vps-ssd-3 (e43d7458-6b82-4a78-a712-3a4dc6748cf4)", "Field": "flavor" }, { "Value": "38119f

Re: Teuthology Integration to native openstack

That's also the version of some of the clusters I use. What version of the openstack cli do you have ? $ openstack --version openstack 1.7.0 > > Thank you > > Regards, > M Bharath Krishna > > On 9/30/15, 2:20 PM, "Loic Dachary" <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >

Re: Teuthology Integration to native openstack

nstack 1.7.0 > > > Thank you. > > Regards > M Bharath Krishna > > > > On 9/30/15, 3:42 PM, "Loic Dachary" <l...@dachary.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 30/09/2015 11:34, Bharath Krishna wrote: >>> Hi Loic, >>> >>

Re: [ceph-users] [puppet] Moving puppet-ceph to the Openstack big tent

Good move :-) On 29/09/2015 23:45, Andrew Woodward wrote: > [I'm cross posting this to the other Ceph threads to ensure that it's seen] > > We've discussed this on Monday on IRC and again in the puppet-openstack IRC > meeting. The current census is that we will move from the deprecated >

Re: branches! infernalis vs master, RIP next

On 29/09/2015 23:12, Sage Weil wrote: > Having master and infernalis branches follow each other is preventing some > folks from moving forward with post-infernalis work. And it's confusing. > So, we're proposing a new world order... and this time it should keep > things consistent both

Re: [Hammer Backports] Should rest-bench be removed on hammer ?

Hi, On 28/09/2015 12:19, Abhishek Varshney wrote: > Hi, > > The rest-bench tool has been removed in master through PR #5428 > (https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5428). The backport PR #5812 > (https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5812) is currently causing failures > on the hammer-backports

Re: Teuthology Integration to native openstack

rs)) > Exception: ('OS_AUTH_URL=http://:5000/v2.0', " does is not a > known OpenStack provider (('cloud.ovh.net', 'ovh'), ('control.os1.phx2', > 'redhat'), ('entercloudsuite.com', 'entercloudsuite'))") This limitation was in an earlier implementations and should not be a problem now. Cheers &g

Re: Teuthology Integration to native openstack

[moving to ceph-devel] Hi, On 27/09/2015 21:20, Bharath Krishna wrote: > Hi, > > We have an openstack deployment in place with CEPH as CINDER backend. > > We would like to perform functional testing for CEPH and found teuthology as > recommended option. > > Have successfully installed

Re: Firefly help

On 26/09/2015 22:14, Nathan Cutler wrote: > Hi Loic: > > For some reason I cannot reach teuthology.front.sepia.ceph.com - I turn > on the VPN but the machine does not respond to pings or ssh. (Nor does > the gateway machine, for that matter.) > > If you feel inclined to help, could you start

Re: failed to open http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com

Hi, On 23/09/2015 12:29, wangsongbo wrote: > 64.90.32.37 apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com It works for me. Could you send a traceroute apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: failed to open http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com

On 23/09/2015 15:11, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 23/09/2015 12:29, wangsongbo wrote: >>> 64.90.32.37 apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com >> >> It works for me. Could you send a traceroute >> apt-mirror.

Re: failed to open http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com

ic entry in the DNS to workaround the problem (see https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/blob/master/teuthology/openstack/setup-openstack.sh#L318) Cheers > > Thanks and Regards, > WangSongbo > > On 15/9/23 下午11:22, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >> On 23/09/2015 1

Re: partprobe or partx or ... ?

Hi Ilya, On 21/09/2015 12:23, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 19/09/2015 17:23, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> Hi Ilya, >>> >>> At present ceph-disk uses partprobe to e

Re: partprobe or partx or ... ?

On 19/09/2015 17:23, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > At present ceph-disk uses partprobe to ensure the kernel is aware of the > latest partition changes after a new one is created, or after zapping the > partition table. Although it works reliably (in the sense that the kern

partprobe or partx or ... ?

Hi Ilya, At present ceph-disk uses partprobe to ensure the kernel is aware of the latest partition changes after a new one is created, or after zapping the partition table. Although it works reliably (in the sense that the kernel is indeed aware of the desired partition layout), it goes as far

Re: What should be in the next hammer/firefly release ?

arted at first. >> (Caution: #5257 has not been committed to master branch yet.) > >> erasure-code: shec plugin feature #5493 >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5493 > >> erasure code: shec performance optimization by decoding cache #5257 >> https://git

install-deps.sh failures on Ubuntu 14.04

Hi, Because a bug appeared in the last 24h when running pip wheel coverage with python3[1], the install-deps.sh[2] script now fails on Ubuntu 14.04. This causes failure on http://ceph.com/gitbuilder.cgi as well as the make check bot that runs on pull requests. A workaround is prepared at

Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

Hi Ceph, With Infernalis Ceph move to c++11 (and CMake), we will see more conflicts when backporting bug fixes to Hammer. Any ideas you may have to better deal with this would be most welcome. Since these conflicts will be mostly cosmetic, they should not be too difficult to resolve. The trick

Re: Backporting from Infernalis and c++11

Hi John, On 15/09/2015 12:02, John Spray wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> With Infernalis Ceph move to c++11 (and CMake), we will see more conflicts >> when backporting bug fixes to Hammer. Any ideas you ma

Re: [Hammer Backports] Status of https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5888

On 15/09/2015 12:36, Abhishek Varshney wrote: > Hi Loic/Abhishek, > > Here are a few backport PRs which I created and some of them have > run-make-check failures. I have tried to triage them and this is the summary > of what I could make of. It would be nice if you can have a look at them and

Re: [Hammer Backports] Status of a few of run-make-check Failed PRs

> PS: I would be on vacation from today and would be back to work on Monday > (21st). Enjoy ! -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Hammer Backports] Status of https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5812

On 15/09/2015 12:36, Abhishek Varshney wrote: > * https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5812 run-make-check-status SUCCESS. > o This is the PR with changes to obj_bencher.{cc,h}, and I guess we are > waiting for Sage's approval to backport all commits from 9bcf5f0 to 069d95e > along with

shec tests failure on i386

Hi Takeshi, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12936 shows that shec tests fail on i386. Before I investigate further, I'd like to know if you had a chance to run more tests ? There are not many users of i386 these days, of course ;-) But this is a good test to verify there are no architecture

Re: reducing package size / compression time

Thanks for the link. Was that effective ? On 14/09/2015 03:40, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> >> You did something to reduce the size (hence the compression time) of the >> debug packages using >> https:

reducing the size of Ceph debug packages

Hi James, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DwarfCompressor is packaged for Ubuntu (http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/dwz) and could be used to reduce the size of the Ceph debug packages. This is how it's done for RPM :

reducing package size / compression time

Hi Sage, You did something to reduce the size (hence the compression time) of the debug packages using https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DwarfCompressor. Would you be so kind as to remind me which commit does that ? Thanks in advance :-) -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

make check bot failures (2 hours today)

Hi Ceph, The make check bot failed a number of pull request verifications today. Each of them was notified as false negative (you should have received a short note if your pull request is concerned). The problem is now fixed[1] and all should be back to normal. If you want to schedule another

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >