On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Peter Maloney
wrote:
> On 08/03/17 11:05, Dan van der Ster wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Maloney
> wrote:
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> Based on what I know and what people told me
On 08/03/17 11:05, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Maloney
> wrote:
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Based on what I know and what people told me on IRC, this means basicaly the
>> condition that the osd is not acting nor up for any pg. And
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Maloney
wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> Based on what I know and what people told me on IRC, this means basicaly the
> condition that the osd is not acting nor up for any pg. And for one person
> (fusl on irc) that said there was
Thanks for this -- it is indeed pretty close to what I was looking
for. I'll look more in detail at its heuristic to confirm it's
correctly telling you which OSDs are safe to remove or not.
BTW, I had to update all the maps to i64 from i32 to make this work --
I'll be sending a pull req.
-- Dan
Hello Dan,
Based on what I know and what people told me on IRC, this means basicaly
the condition that the osd is not acting nor up for any pg. And for one
person (fusl on irc) that said there was a unfound objects bug when he
had size = 1, also he said if reweight (and I assume crush weight) is
Hello Dan,
Something like this maybe?
https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/ceph_safe_disk
Cheers,
Alex
2017-07-28 9:36 GMT-04:00 Dan van der Ster :
> Hi all,
>
> We are trying to outsource the disk replacement process for our ceph
> clusters to some non-expert sysadmins.
> We
Hi all,
We are trying to outsource the disk replacement process for our ceph
clusters to some non-expert sysadmins.
We could really use a tool that reports if a Ceph OSD *would* or
*would not* be safe to stop, e.g.
# ceph-osd-safe-to-stop osd.X
Yes it would be OK to stop osd.X
(which of course