's no
reason to think pacific has fixed it, and your observations seems to
confirm that.
I suggest you post to that ticket with your info.
Cheers, Dan
> It would be great if I could use the first rule, except for this bug. Perhaps
> the second rule is best at this point.
>
> Any other
d it, and your observations seems to
confirm that.
I suggest you post to that ticket with your info.
Cheers, Dan
> It would be great if I could use the first rule, except for this bug. Perhaps
> the second rule is best at this point.
>
> Any other thoughts would be appreciated.
>
int.
Any other thoughts would be appreciated.
-Chris
-Original Message-
From: Dan van der Ster
To: Christopher Durham
Cc: Ceph Users
Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2022 11:39 am
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: crush hierarchy backwards and upmaps ...
Hi Chris,
Just curious, does this rule make se
:39:11
To: Christopher Durham
Cc: Ceph Users
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: crush hierarchy backwards and upmaps ...
Hi Chris,
Just curious, does this rule make sense and help with the multi level crush
map issue?
(Maybe it also results in zero movement, or at least less then the
alternative you proposed
ep 4 type rack
> step chooseleaf indep 2 type host
> step emit
> }
>
> -Chris
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan van der Ster
> To: Christopher Durham
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2022 12:22 pm
> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: cru
indep 4 type rack
step chooseleaf indep 2 type host
step emit }
-Chris
-Original Message-
From: Dan van der Ster
To: Christopher Durham
Cc: Ceph Users
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2022 12:22 pm
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: crush hierarchy backwards and upmaps ...
Hi,
Here's a similar bug
Hi,
Here's a similar bug: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/47361
Back then, upmap would generate mappings that invalidate the crush rule. I
don't know if that is still the case, but indeed you'll want to correct
your rule.
Something else you can do before applying the new crush map is use
