By the way,
on the link that John send I believe there is a typo.
In the very beginning of the Open Required Ports session the port
range says 6800:7810 where below is
mentioned as 6800:7100.
I think that the former is a typo based on previous documentation where
the ports where declared to
Amazing piece of work Karan , this was something which is missing since
long , thanks for filling the gap.
I got my book today and just finished reading couple of pages , excellent
introduction to Ceph.
Thanks again , its worth purchasing this book.
Best Regards
Vicky
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015
Thanks for spotting the inconsistency.
The 7100 number is out of date, the upper port bound has been 7300 for
some time. The 7810 number does indeed look like a simple typo.
The 6810 number is an example rather than the upper bound -- the body
of the text explains that it is up to the
Hi List,
Fisrt tutorial to map/unmap RBD devices into OpenSVC service :
http://www.flox-arts.net/article29/monter-un-disque-ceph-dans-service-opensvc-step-1
Sorry it’s in French
Next step : Christophe Varoqui has just integrated CEPH in core OpenSVC code
with snapshots clones managing, I will
Hi
I have installed 6 node ceph cluster and doing a performance bench mark for
the same using Nova VMs. What I have observed that FIO random write reports
around 250 MBps for 1M block size and PGs 4096 and *650MBps for iM block
size and PG counts 2048* . Can some body let me know if I am missing
Hi,
I'm currently use crush tunables optimal value.
If I upgrade from firefly to hammer, does the optimal value will upgrade to
optimal values for hammer.
So, does my clients (qemu-librbd) need to be also upgraded to hammer to support
new hammer features ?
If yes,
I think to:
- change
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently use crush tunables optimal value.
If I upgrade from firefly to hammer, does the optimal value will upgrade
to optimal values for hammer.
The tunables won't change on upgrade, and optimal on firefly != optimal on
hammer. In
Ah ok, Great !
I was just a bit worried about upgrade.
Thanks for your response sage !
- Mail original -
De: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net
À: aderumier aderum...@odiso.com
Cc: ceph-users ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Envoyé: Lundi 9 Février 2015 07:11:46
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] crush tunables
Hello ceph teams,
Anyone can provide or confirm?
ct_target_max_mem_mb is cache target pool's maximum memory in MB, the cache
pool's maximum memory it can used?
Additional details would be appreciated.
Regards;
_benaquino
___
ceph-users mailing list
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Sumit Gaur sumitkg...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I have installed 6 node ceph cluster and doing a performance bench mark for
the same using Nova VMs. What I have observed that FIO random write reports
around 250 MBps for 1M block size and PGs 4096 and 650MBps for iM
Dear cephers：
My cluster( 0.87) got an odd incident.
The incident is when I marked the default crush rule replicated_ruleset
and set new rule called new_rule1.
Content of rule new_rule1 is just like replicated_ruleset. Only
difference is ruleset number .
After applied new map into crush then used
Does anyone have a good recommendation for per-OSD memory for EC? My EC
test blew up in my face when my OSDs suddenly spiked to 10+ GB per OSD
process as soon as any reconstruction was needed. Which (of course) caused
OSDs to OOM, which meant more reconstruction, which fairly immediately led
to
Hello!
*** Shameless plug: Sage, I'm working with Dirk Grunwald on this cluster; I
believe some of the members of your thesis committee were students of his =)
We have a modest cluster at CU Boulder and are frequently plagued by requests
are blocked issues. I'd greatly appreciate any insight or
13 matches
Mail list logo
