A userspace application should issue fsync or fdatasync calls where
appropriate.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:15 PM, 许雪寒 wrote:
> Thanks for your reply:-)
>
> I've got your point. By the way, if an application opens a file WITHOUT
> setting the O_DIRECT or O_SYNC, then it sequentially issues two o
Thanks for your reply:-)
I've got your point. By the way, if an application opens a file WITHOUT setting
the O_DIRECT or O_SYNC, then it sequentially issues two overlapping glibc write
operations to the underlying file system. As far as I understand the linux file
system, those writes might not
Yes -- the crashed server also mounted cephfs as a client, and also likely
had active writes to the file when it crashed.
I have the max file size set to 17,592,186,044,416 -- but this file was
about 5.8TB.
The likely reason for the crash? The file was mounted as a fileio backstore
to LIO, which
Hi,
I'm new to ceph and trying to set up a few test nodes. On activating first
osd,
the command ceph-deploy fails pointing to:
/usr/bin/ceph --cluster ceph --name client.bootstrap-osd --keyring
/var/lib/ceph/bootstrap-osd/ceph.keyring auth add osd.0 -i
/var/lib/ceph/tmp/mnt.i1cISA/keyring osd a
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:15 AM, John Spray wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Daniel K wrote:
>> Have a 20 OSD cluster -"my first ceph cluster" that has another 400 OSDs
>> enroute.
>>
>> I was "beating up" on the cluster, and had been writing to a 6TB file in
>> CephFS for several hours
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, John Spray wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Jake Grimmett wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> That's great, thank you so much for the advice.
>> Some of our users have massive files so this would have been a big block.
>>
>> Is there any particular reason for having a
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Jake Grimmett wrote:
> Hi John,
> That's great, thank you so much for the advice.
> Some of our users have massive files so this would have been a big block.
>
> Is there any particular reason for having a file size limit?
Without the size limit, a user can create
Hi John,
That's great, thank you so much for the advice.
Some of our users have massive files so this would have been a big block.
Is there any particular reason for having a file size limit? Would setting
max_file_size to 0 remove all limits?
Thanks again,
Jake
On 24 May 2017 19:45:52 BST, Jo
Hey cephers,
Just wanted to share the genesis of a new community project that could
use a few helping hands (and any amount of feedback/discussion that
you might like to offer).
As a bit of backstory, around 2013 the Backblaze folks started
publishing statistics about hard drive reliability from
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Brady Deetz wrote:
> Are there any repercussions to configuring this on an existing large fs?
No. It's just a limit that's enforced at the point of appending to
files or setting their size, it doesn't affect how anything is stored.
John
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 a
Are there any repercussions to configuring this on an existing large fs?
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, John Spray wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jake Grimmett
> wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I've been testing out cephfs, and bumped into what appears to be an upper
> > file size lim
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jake Grimmett wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I've been testing out cephfs, and bumped into what appears to be an upper
> file size limit of ~1.1TB
>
> e.g:
>
> [root@cephfs1 ~]# time rsync --progress -av /ssd/isilon_melis.tar
> /ceph/isilon_melis.tar
> sending incremental
Dear All,
I've been testing out cephfs, and bumped into what appears to be an upper
file size limit of ~1.1TB
e.g:
[root@cephfs1 ~]# time rsync --progress -av /ssd/isilon_melis.tar
/ceph/isilon_melis.tar
sending incremental file list
isilon_melis.tar
1099341824000 54% 237.51MB/s1:02:05
rsy
Hi
In minimum_to_decode function of ErasureCodeLrc.c , I suspect non efficient
implementation. More specifically, instead of reading the minimum, we read
the maximum.
The problem is in this case:
//
// Get all available chunks in that layer to recover the
// missing one(s).
//
set_difference(i
Networking is 10Gig. I notice recovery IO is wildly variable, I assume
that's normal.
Very little load as this is yet to go into production, I was "seeing what
it would handle" at the time it broke.
I checked this morning and the slow request had gone and I could access the
blocked file again.
A
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Shain Miley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all your help so far...very useful information indeed.
>
>
> Here is the debug output from the file you referenced below:
>
>
> root@rbd1:/sys/kernel/debug/ceph/504b5794-34bd-44e7-a8c3-0494cf800c23.client67751889#
> cat osdc
Just like a regular block device, re-orders are permitted between
write barriers/flushes. For example, if I had a HDD with 512 byte
sectors and I attempted to write 4K, there is no guarantee what the
disk will look like if you had a crash mid-write or if you
concurrently issued an overlapping write
Hi Greg,
> This does sound weird, but I also notice that in your earlier email you
> seemed to have only ~5k PGs across ~1400 OSDs, which is a pretty
> low number. You may just have a truly horrible PG balance; can you share
> more details (eg ceph osd df)?
Our distribution is pretty bad, we're
Hi,
Thanks for all your help so far...very useful information indeed.
Here is the debug output from the file you referenced below:
root@rbd1:/sys/kernel/debug/ceph/504b5794-34bd-44e7-a8c3-0494cf800c23.client67751889#
cat osdc
2311osd144 3.1347f3bc
rb.0.25f2ab0.238e1f29.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Shain Miley wrote:
> Hello,
> We just upgraded from Hammer to Jewel, and after the cluster once again
> reported a healthy state I set the crush tunables to ‘optimal’ (from
> legacy).
> 12 hours later and the cluster is almost done with the pg remapping under
> the
2017-05-24 6:26 GMT+00:00 Anton Dmitriev :
> Hi
>
> Correct me if I am wrong: when uploading file to RGW it becomes split into
> stripe units and this stripe units mapped to RADOS objects. This RADOS
> objects are files on OSD filestore.
Yes, see this blog post that explains this in a bit more det
Hello,
We just upgraded from Hammer to Jewel, and after the cluster once again
reported a healthy state I set the crush tunables to ‘optimal’ (from legacy).
12 hours later and the cluster is almost done with the pg remapping under the
new rules.
The issue I am having is the server where we mount
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Daniel K wrote:
> Have a 20 OSD cluster -"my first ceph cluster" that has another 400 OSDs
> enroute.
>
> I was "beating up" on the cluster, and had been writing to a 6TB file in
> CephFS for several hours, during which I changed the crushmap to better
> match my
Hello
I think I’m running into a bug that is described at
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14213 for Hammer.
However I’m running the latest version of Jewel 10.2.7, although I’m in the
middle of upgrading the cluster (from 10.2.5). At first it was on a couple of
nodes, but now it seems to be mor
24 matches
Mail list logo
