Re: [ceph-users] reducing min_size on erasure coded pool may allow recovery ?

Thanks for the clarification! Glad to see this feature is being pursued. Chad. On 10/30/2018 12:24 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:43 PM David Turner > wrote: > > min_size should be at least k+1 for EC. There are times to use k for >

Re: [ceph-users] reducing min_size on erasure coded pool may allow recovery ?

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:43 PM David Turner wrote: > min_size should be at least k+1 for EC. There are times to use k for > emergencies like you had. I would suggest seeing it back to 3 once your > back to healthy. > > As far as why you needed to reduce min_size, my guess would be that >

Re: [ceph-users] reducing min_size on erasure coded pool may allow recovery ?

min_size should be at least k+1 for EC. There are times to use k for emergencies like you had. I would suggest seeing it back to 3 once your back to healthy. As far as why you needed to reduce min_size, my guess would be that recovery would have happened as long as k copies were up. Were the PG's

[ceph-users] reducing min_size on erasure coded pool may allow recovery ?

Hi all, Recently our cluster lost a drive and a node (3 drives) at the same time. Our erasure coded pools are all k2m2, so if all is working correctly no data is lost. However, there were 4 PGs that stayed "incomplete" until I finally took the suggestion in 'ceph health detail' to reduce