or qemu-rbd support - I did so on
> latest Debain (stretch)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Z
> Will
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:49 AM
> To: Ceph-User <ceph-us...@ceph.com>
> Subject: [ceph-
Hi all:
I have tried to install a vm using rbd as disk, following the
steps from ceph doc, but met some problems. the packages environment
is following:
CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)
libvirt-2.0.0-10.el7_3.9.x86_64
libvirt-python-2.0.0-2.el7.x86_64
I think if you want to delete through gc,
increase this
OPTION(rgw_gc_processor_max_time, OPT_INT, 3600) // total run time
for a single gc processor work
decrease this
OPTION(rgw_gc_processor_period, OPT_INT, 3600) // gc processor cycle time
Or , I think if there is some option to bypass the gc
For large cluster , there will be a lot of change at any time, this
means the pressure of mon will be big at some time, because all change
will go through leader , so for this , the local storage for mon
should be good enough, I think this maybe a conderation .
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:29
to change little code, any
suggesstion for this ? Do I lack of any considerations ?
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Joao Eduardo Luis <j...@suse.de> wrote:
> On 07/05/2017 08:01 AM, Z Will wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joao:
>> I think this is all because we choose the moni
rom
other mons when needed for increasing performance.
other logic is same as before
What do you think of it ?
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Sage Weil <s...@newdream.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Z Will wrote:
>> Hi Joao :
>>
>> Thanks for thorough
to current leader, then it will decide
whether to stand by for a while and try later or start a leader
election based on the information got from probing phase.
Do you think this will be OK ?
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Joao Eduardo Luis <j...@suse.de> wrote:
> On 07/05/2017 08
a view num.
In election phase:
they send the view num , rank num .
when receiving the election message, it compare the view num (
higher is leader ) and rank num ( lower is leader).
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Joao Eduardo Luis <j...@suse.de> wrote:
> On 07/04/2017 06
man ? Is there any way to handle it automaticly from design as you
know ?
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Alvaro Soto <alsot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Z,
> You are forcing a byzantine failure, the paxos implemented to form the
> consensus ring of the mon daemons does not support thi
Hi:
I am testing ceph-mon brain split . I have read the code . If I
understand it right , I know it won't be brain split. But I think
there is still another problem. My ceph version is 0.94.10. And here
is my test detail :
3 ceph-mons , there ranks are 0, 1, 2 respectively.I stop the rank 1
opinion it The
> only true S3 performance testing tool.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Nowosielski
>
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Zespół Infrastruktury 5
> Grupa Allegro sp. z o.o.
> Tel: +48 512 08 55 92
>
> Grupa Allegro Sp. z o.o. z siedzibą w Poznaniu, 60-166 Poznań,
Hi Patrick:
I want to ask a very tiny question. How much 9s do you claim your
storage durability? And how is it calculated ? Based on the data you
provided , have you find some failure model to refine the storage
durability ?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:09 AM, David Turner
Hi all :
I have some questions about the durability of ceph. I am trying
to mesure the durability of ceph .I konw it should be related with
host and disk failing probability, failing detection time, when to
trigger the recover and the recovery time . I use it with multiple
replication, say
Hello gurus:
My name is will . I have just study ceph and have a lot of
interest in it . We are using ceph 0.94.10. And I am tring to tune the
performance of ceph to satisfy our requirements. We are using it as
object store now. Even though I have tried some different
configuration. But I
Hi:
I used nginx + fastcti + radosgw , when configure radosgw with "rgw
print continue = true " In RFC 2616 , it says An origin server that
sends a 100 (Continue) response MUST ultimately send a final status
code, once the request body is received and processed, unless it
terminates the
Hi:
Very sorry for the last email, it was an accident. Recently, I
trid to configure radosgw (0.94.7) with nginx as frontend, benchmark
it with cosbench. And I found a strange thing. My os-related
configuration are,
net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 1000
net.core.somaxconn = 1024
In rgw_main.cc,
Hi:
Recently, I trid to configure radosgw with nginx as frontend,
benchmark it with cosbench. And I found a strange thing. My os-related
configuration are,
net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 1000
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Hi:
I have tried to use nginx + fastcgi + radosgw , and benchmarked
it with cosbench. I tuned the nginx and centos configration , but
coundn't get the desirable performance. I met the following problem.
1、 I tried to tuned the centos net.ipv4... parameters, and I got a
lot of CLOSE_WAIT
Hi Guys,
Now we have a very small cluster with 3 OSDs but using 40Gb NIC. We use
ceph-fuse as cephfs client and enable readahead,
but testing single reading a large file from cephfs via fio, dd or cp can only
achieve ~70+MB/s, even if fio or dd's block size is set to 1MB or 4MB.
From the
Hi Guys,
I am trying latest ceph-9.1.0 with rocksdb 4.1 and ceph-9.0.3 with rocksdb 3.11
as OSD backend. I use rbd to test performance and following is my cluster info.
[ceph@xxx ~]$ ceph -s
cluster b74f3944-d77f-4401-a531-fa5282995808
health HEALTH_OK
monmap e1: 1 mons at
dont provide with this option now
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Z Zhang <zhangz.da...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Sage, for pointing out the PR and ceph branch. I will take a closer
> > look. Yes, I am trying KVStore backend. The reason we are trying it is that
>
.com
> CC: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Write performance issue under rocksdb kvstore
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Z Zhang wrote:
> > Thanks, Sage, for pointing out the PR and ceph branch. I will take a
> > closer look.
...@outlook.com
CC: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Write performance issue under rocksdb kvstore
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Z Zhang wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I am trying latest ceph-9.1.0 with rocksdb 4.1 and ceph-9.0.3 with
> rocksdb 3.11 as OSD backen
FW to ceph-user
Thanks.
Zhi Zhang (David)
From: zhangz.da...@outlook.com
To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Long tail latency due to journal aio io_submit takes long time to
return
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:46:34 +0800
Hi Ceph-devel,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Z Zhang zhangz.da...@outlook.com wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:37:37 +0300
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] which kernel version can help avoid kernel
client deadlock
From: idryo...@gmail.com
To: zhangz.da...@outlook.com
CC: chaofa...@owtware.com; ceph
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:11:11 +0300
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] which kernel version can help avoid kernel client
deadlock
From: idryo...@gmail.com
To: zhangz.da...@outlook.com
CC: chaofa...@owtware.com; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Z Zhang zhangz.da
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:37:37 +0300
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] which kernel version can help avoid kernel client
deadlock
From: idryo...@gmail.com
To: zhangz.da...@outlook.com
CC: chaofa...@owtware.com; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Z Zhang zhangz.da
We also hit the similar issue from time to time on centos with 3.10.x kernel.
By iostat, we can see kernel rbd client's util is 100%, but no r/w io, and we
can't umount/unmap this rbd client. After restarting OSDs, it will become
normal.
@Ilya, could you pls point us the possible fixes on
Hi Guys,
By reading through ceph client codes, there is timeout mechanism in tick when
doing mount. Recently we met some client requests to mds spending long time to
reply when doing massive test to cephfs. And if we want cephfs user to know the
timeout instead of waiting for the reply, can we
into smaller IO's
From: idryo...@gmail.com
To: zhangz.da...@outlook.com
CC: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Z Zhang zhangz.da...@outlook.com wrote:
Hi Ilya,
I am seeing your recent email talking about krbd splitting large IO's into
smaller IO's, see below link
Hi Ilya,
I am seeing your recent email talking about krbd splitting large IO's into
smaller IO's, see below link.
https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20587.html
I just tried it on my ceph cluster using kernel 3.10.0-1. I adjust both
max_sectors_kb and max_hw_sectors_kb of
On Monday, June 15, 2015 3:05 AM, ceph-users-requ...@lists.ceph.com
ceph-users-requ...@lists.ceph.com wrote:
Send ceph-users mailing list submissions to
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:47 AM, David Z david.z1...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Ceph folks,
We want to use rbd format v2, but find it is not supported on kernel 3.10.0
of centos 7:
[ceph@ ~]$ sudo rbd map zhi_rbd_test_1
rbd: sysfs write failed
rbd: map failed: (22) Invalid argument
[ceph
Hi Ceph folks,
We want to use rbd format v2, but find it is not supported on kernel 3.10.0 of
centos 7:
[ceph@ ~]$ sudo rbd map zhi_rbd_test_1
rbd: sysfs write failed
rbd: map failed: (22) Invalid argument
[ceph@ ~]$ dmesg | tail
[662453.664746] rbd: image zhi_rbd_test_1:
Hi Guys,
We are experiencing some OSD crashing issues recently, like messenger crash,
some strange crash (still being investigating), etc. Those crashes seems not to
reproduce after restarting OSD.
So we are thinking about the strategy of auto-restarting crashed OSD for 1 or 2
times, then
Thanks Wildo, I have to admit its slightly disappointing (but completely
understandable) since it basically means it's not safe for us to use CephFS :(
Without userquotas, it would be sufficient to have multiple CephFS
filesystems and to be able to set the size of each one.
Is it part of the
I have been testing CephFS on our computational cluster of about 30 computers.
I've got 4 machines, 4 disks, 4 osd, 4 mon and 1 mds at the moment for testing.
The testing has been going very well apart from one problem that needs to be
resolved before we can use Ceph in place of our existing
37 matches
Mail list logo
