On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Anthony Alba ascanio.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cephers,
Have anyone of you decided to put Giant into production instead of Firefly?
This is very interesting to me too: we are going to deploy a large
ceph cluster on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, and so far what I have found
hi, all
When I run command 'ceph-deploy disk list nodename', there are some warning
messages indicate partition table error, but the ceph cluster is working
normally.
What is the problem, should I run sgdisk command to repair the partition table?
Below is the warning messages:
Jake,
very usefull indeed.
It looks like I had a similar problem regarding the heartbeat and as you' have
mentioned, I've not seen such issues on Firefly. However, i've not seen any osd
crashes.
Could you please let me know where you got the sysctrl.conf tunings from? Was
it recommended
Hi all!
I am using AWS SDK JS v.2.0.29 to perform a multipart upload into
Radosgw with ceph version 0.80.7
(6c0127fcb58008793d3c8b62d925bc91963672a3) and I am getting a 403 error.
I believe that the id which is send to all requests and has been
urlencoded by the aws-sdk-js doesn't match
For example if I try to perform the same multipart upload at an older
version ceph version 0.72.2 (a913ded2ff138aefb8cb84d347d72164099cfd60)
I can see the upload ID in the apache log as:
PUT
/test/.dat?partNumber=25uploadId=I3yihBFZmHx9CCqtcDjr8d-RhgfX8NW
HTTP/1.1 200 - -
Hi,
I have migrated my Chinese translation from PDF to Ceph official
doc build system. Just replace doc/ in ceph repository with this repo,
the building should be work. The official doc build guide should be
work for this too.
Old PDF: https://github.com/drunkard/docs_zh
New:
It would be nice to see where and how uploadId
is being calculated...
Thanks,
George
For example if I try to perform the same multipart upload at an older
version ceph version 0.72.2
(a913ded2ff138aefb8cb84d347d72164099cfd60)
I can see the upload ID in the apache log as:
PUT
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Anthony Alba ascanio.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cephers,
Have anyone of you decided to put Giant into production instead of Firefly?
This is very interesting to me too: we are going to deploy a large
ceph cluster on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, and so far what I have found
Hi All,
Does anybody have any input on what the best ratio + total numbers of Data +
Coding chunks you would choose?
For example I could create a pool with 7 data chunks and 3 coding chunks and
get an efficiency of 70%, or I could create a pool with 17 data chunks and 3
coding chunks and
This is probably due to the Kernel RBD client not being recent enough. Have
you tried upgrading your kernel to a newer version? 3.16 should contain all
the relevant features required by Giant.
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
What are the kernel versions involved ?
We have Ubuntu precise clients talking to a Ubuntu trusty cluster without
issues - with tunables optimal.
0.88 (Giant) and 0.89 has been working well for us as far the client and
Openstack are concerned.
This link provides some insight as to the possible
Hi,
I recently e-mailed ceph-users about a problem with virtual machine RBD
disks remounting read-only because of OSD slow requests[1]. I just
wanted to report that although I'm still seeing OSDs from one particular
machine going down sometimes (probably some hardware problem on that
node), the
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Moreau Simard dmsim...@iweb.com wrote:
What are the kernel versions involved ?
We have Ubuntu precise clients talking to a Ubuntu trusty cluster without
issues - with tunables optimal.
0.88 (Giant) and 0.89 has been working well for us as far the client
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Nick Fisk n...@fisk.me.uk wrote:
This is probably due to the Kernel RBD client not being recent enough. Have
you tried upgrading your kernel to a newer version? 3.16 should contain all
the relevant features required by Giant.
I would rather tune the tunables, as
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
I'm running 3.17 on my trusty clients without issue
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Antonio Messina antonio.mess...@s3it.uzh.ch
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Nick Fisk n...@fisk.me.uk wrote:
This is probably due to the Kernel RBD
Ok sorry, I thought you had a need for some of the features in Giant, using
tunables is probably easier in that case.
However if you do want to upgrade there are debs available:-
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
and I believe 3.16 should be available in the 14.04.2 release, which
Thank you James and Nick,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Nick Fisk n...@fisk.me.uk wrote:
Ok sorry, I thought you had a need for some of the features in Giant, using
tunables is probably easier in that case.
I'm not sure :) I never played with the tunables before (still running
a testbed
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Antonio Messina wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Anthony Alba ascanio.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cephers,
Have anyone of you decided to put Giant into production instead of Firefly?
This is very interesting to me too: we are going to deploy a large
ceph cluster
I've flushed everything - data, pools, configs and reconfigured the whole thing.
I was particularly careful with cache tiering configurations (almost leaving
defaults when possible) and it's not locking anymore.
It looks like the cache tiering configuration I had was causing the problem ? I
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Antonio Messina wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Anthony Alba ascanio.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cephers,
Have anyone of you decided to put Giant into production instead of Firefly?
This is very
Hi all, just an update
After setting chooseleaf_vary_r to 0 _and_ removing an pool with
erasure coding, I was able to run rbd map.
Thank you all for the help
.a.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Antonio Messina
antonio.mess...@s3it.uzh.ch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Sage Weil
On 05/12/2014 16:21, Nick Fisk wrote: Hi All,
Does anybody have any input on what the best ratio + total numbers of Data +
Coding chunks you would choose?
For example I could create a pool with 7 data chunks and 3 coding chunks and
get an efficiency of 70%, or I could create
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Antonio Messina wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Antonio Messina wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Anthony Alba ascanio.al...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Cephers,
Have anyone of you decided to put Giant
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote:
The v2 rule means you have a crush rule for erasure coding. Do you have
an EC pool in your cluster?
Yes indeed. I didn't know EC pool was incompatible with the current
kernel, I only tested it with rados bench and VMs, I guess.
I hope you can provide with more runtime infos like logs
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Paulo Almeida
palme...@igc.gulbenkian.pt wrote:
Hi,
I recently e-mailed ceph-users about a problem with virtual machine RBD
disks remounting read-only because of OSD slow requests[1]. I just
wanted to
On 05/12/2014 17:41, Nick Fisk wrote:
Hi Loic,
Thanks for your response.
The idea for this cluster will be for our VM Replica storage in our
secondary site. Initially we are planning to have a 40 disk EC pool sitting
behind a cache pool of around 1TB post replica size.
This storage
It looks like a bug. Can you open an issue on tracker.ceph.com,
describing what you see?
Thanks,
Yehuda
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Georgios Dimitrakakis
gior...@acmac.uoc.gr wrote:
It would be nice to see where and how uploadId
is being calculated...
Thanks,
George
For example
A while back we merged Haomai's experimental OSD backend KeyValueStore.
We named the config option 'keyvaluestore_dev', hoping to make it clear to
users that it was still under development, not fully tested, and not yet
ready for production. In retrospect, I don't think '_dev' was
* On 05 Dec 2014, Sage Weil wrote:
adding that fall into this category. Having them in the tree is great
because it streamlines QA and testing, but I want to make sure that
users are not able to enable the features without being aware of the
risks.
A few possible suggestions:
-
On 12/05/2014 11:39 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
A while back we merged Haomai's experimental OSD backend KeyValueStore.
We named the config option 'keyvaluestore_dev', hoping to make it clear to
users that it was still under
On 12/05/2014 11:47 AM, David Champion wrote:
* On 05 Dec 2014, Sage Weil wrote:
adding that fall into this category. Having them in the tree is great
because it streamlines QA and testing, but I want to make sure that
users are not able to enable the features without being aware of the
risks.
Hello -
I have rados gateway setup working with http. But when I enable SSL on gateway
node, I am having trouble making successful swift requests over https.
root@hrados:~# swift -V 1.0 -A https://hrados1.ex.com/auth/v1.0 -U
s3User:swiftUser -K 8fJfd6YW2poqhvBI+uUYJZE1uscnmrDncRXrkjHR
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
A while back we merged Haomai's experimental OSD backend KeyValueStore.
We named the config option 'keyvaluestore_dev', hoping to make it clear to
users that it was still under development, not fully tested, and not yet
ready
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Christian Balzer ch...@gol.com wrote:
Hello,
This morning I decided to reboot a storage node (Debian Jessie, thus 3.16
kernel and Ceph 0.80.7, HDD OSDs with SSD journals) after applying some
changes.
It came back up one OSD short, the last log lines before
I prefer the third option (enumeration). I don't see a point where we would
enable experimental features on our production clusters, but it would be
nice to have the same bits and procedures between our dev/beta and
production clusters.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
- enumerate experiemntal options we want to enable
...
This has the property that no config change is necessary when the
feature drops its experimental status.
It keeps the risky options in one place too so easier to spot.
Hi,
perhaps an stupid question, but why you change the hostname?
Not tried, but I guess if you boot the node with an new hostname, the
old hostname are in the crush map, but without any OSDs - because they
are on the new host.
Don't know ( I guess not) if the degration level stay also on 5% if
Hi,
if I have a situation when each node in a cluster writes their own
files in cephfs, is it safe to use multiple MDS ?
I mean, is the problem using multiple MDS related to nodes writing same files ?
thanks,
-lorieri
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Shain Miley smi...@npr.org wrote:
+1 for
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:23:19 -0800 Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Christian Balzer ch...@gol.com wrote:
Hello,
This morning I decided to reboot a storage node (Debian Jessie, thus
3.16 kernel and Ceph 0.80.7, HDD OSDs with SSD journals) after
applying some
39 matches
Mail list logo
