[ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

Hi, after having some problems with ipv6 and download.ceph.com, i made a mirror (debian-hammer only) for my ipv6-only cluster. Unfortunately after the release of 0.94.5 the rsync breaks with: # less rsync-ftpsync-mirror_ceph.error.0 rsync: send_files failed to open

Re: [ceph-users] Understanding the number of TCP connections between clients and OSDs

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jan Schermer wrote: > If we're talking about RBD clients (qemu) then the number also grows with > number of volumes attached to the client. I never thought about that but it might explain a problem we have where multiple attached volumes

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

On 10/27/2015 10:22 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: On 27-10-15 09:51, Björn Lässig wrote: after having some problems with ipv6 and download.ceph.com, i made a mirror (debian-hammer only) for my ipv6-only cluster. I see you are from Germany, you can also sync from eu.ceph.com good to know,

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

On 27-10-15 09:51, Björn Lässig wrote: > Hi, > > after having some problems with ipv6 and download.ceph.com, i made a > mirror (debian-hammer only) for my ipv6-only cluster. > I see you are from Germany, you can also sync from eu.ceph.com > Unfortunately after the release of 0.94.5 the rsync

Re: [ceph-users] Question about rbd flag(RBD_FLAG_OBJECT_MAP_INVALID)

> Hi Jason dillaman > Recently I worked on the feature http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13500 , when > I read the code about librbd, I was confused by RBD_FLAG_OBJECT_MAP_INVALID > flag. > When I create a rbd with “—image-features = 13 ” , we enable object-map > feature without setting

Re: [ceph-users] BAD nvme SSD performance

Hello, On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:37:42 + Matteo Dacrema wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for all the replies. > > I've found the issue: > The Samsung nvme SSD has poor performance with sync=1. It reach only 4/5 > k iops with randwrite ops. > > Using Intel DC S3700 SSDs I'm able to saturate the CPU.

Re: [ceph-users] BAD nvme SSD performance

Hi, thanks for all the replies. I've found the issue: The Samsung nvme SSD has poor performance with sync=1. It reach only 4/5 k iops with randwrite ops. Using Intel DC S3700 SSDs I'm able to saturate the CPU. I'm using hammer v 0.94.5 on Ubuntu 14.04 and 3.19.0-31 kernel What do you think

Re: [ceph-users] when an osd is started up, IO will be blocked

Hi Cephers, We're in the middle of trying to triage the issue with ceph cluster running 0.80.9 which was reported by Songbo and seeking for you experts' advices. In fact, per our testing the process of stopping an working OSD and starting it again will lead to a huge performance downgrade.

Re: [ceph-users] Our 0.94.2 OSD are not restarting : osd/PG.cc: 2856: FAILED assert(values.size() == 1)

You might see if http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13060 could apply to your cluster. If so upgrading to .94.4 should fix it. *Don't* reset your OSD journal. That is never the answer and is basically the same as trashing the OSD in question. -Greg On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Laurent GUERBY

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Björn Lässig wrote: > indeed there is: > > [09:40:49] ~ > rsync -4 -L > download.ceph.com::ceph/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/.ceph-dbg_0.94.5-1trusty_amd64.deb.3xQnIQ > -rw--- 91,488,256 2015/10/26 19:36:46 >

Re: [ceph-users] fedora core 22

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Andrew Hume wrote: > a while back, i had installed ceph (firefly i believe) on my fedora core > system and all went smoothly. > i went to repeat this yesterday with hammer, but i am stymied by lack of > packages. there doesn’t > appear

[ceph-users] Our 0.94.2 OSD are not restarting : osd/PG.cc: 2856: FAILED assert(values.size() == 1)

Hi, After a host failure (and two disks failing within 8 hours) one of our OSD failed to start after boot with the following error: 0> 2015-10-26 08:15:59.923059 7f67f0cb2900 -1 osd/PG.cc: In function 'static epoch_t PG::peek_map_epoch(ObjectStore*, spg_t, ceph::bufferlist*)' thread 7f67f0cb2900

Re: [ceph-users] PGs stuck in active+clean+replay

Hi Greg, No, unfortunately I haven¹t found any resolution to it. We are using cephfs, the whole installation is on 0.94.4. What I did notice is that performance is extremely poor when backfilling is happening. I wonder if timeouts of some kind could cause PG¹s to get stuck in replay. I

Re: [ceph-users] PGs stuck in active+clean+replay

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Andras Pataki > wrote: >> Hi ceph users, >> >> We’ve upgraded to 0.94.4 (all ceph daemons got restarted) – and are in the >> middle of doing some

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

Thanks, I've deleted it from the download.ceph.com web server. - Ken On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote: > Yes that file can (should) be deleted > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM,

Re: [ceph-users] PGs stuck in active+clean+replay

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Andras Pataki wrote: > Hi Greg, > > No, unfortunately I haven¹t found any resolution to it. We are using > cephfs, the whole installation is on 0.94.4. What I did notice is that > performance is extremely poor when backfilling is

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

Yes that file can (should) be deleted On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Björn Lässig > wrote: >> indeed there is: >> >> [09:40:49] ~ > rsync -4 -L >>

Re: [ceph-users] PGs stuck in active+clean+replay

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Andras Pataki wrote: > Hi ceph users, > > We’ve upgraded to 0.94.4 (all ceph daemons got restarted) – and are in the > middle of doing some rebalancing due to crush changes (removing some disks). > During the rebalance, I see that

Re: [ceph-users] PGs stuck in active+clean+replay

Yes, this definitely sounds plausible (the peering/activating process does take a long time). At the moment I’m trying to get our cluster back to a more working state. Once everything works, I could try building a patched set of ceph processes from source (currently I’m using the pre-built

Re: [ceph-users] fedora core 22

- Original Message - > From: "Andrew Hume" > To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > Sent: Tuesday, 27 October, 2015 11:13:04 PM > Subject: [ceph-users] fedora core 22 > > a while back, i had installed ceph (firefly i believe) on my fedora core > system and all went smoothly.

Re: [ceph-users] Question about rbd flag(RBD_FLAG_OBJECT_MAP_INVALID)

Thanks for your reply, why not rebuild object-map when object-map feature is enabled. Cheers, xinxin -Original Message- From: Jason Dillaman [mailto:dilla...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:20 PM To: Shu, Xinxin Cc: ceph-users Subject: Re: Question about rbd

[ceph-users] Read-out much slower than write-in on my ceph cluster

Dear Ceph experts, I found something strange about the performance of my Ceph cluster: Read-out much slower than write-in. I have 3 machines running OSDs, each has 8 OSDs running on 8 raid0s (each made up of 2 HDDs) respectively. The OSD journal and data the is on the same device. All

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

On 10/27/2015 02:50 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: i run a secondary debian mirror at my old university for more than 10 years now. If you start working on that, please keep me in the loop. Maybe starting with a ceph-mirror mailinglist would be a possibility, to concentrate all interested people.

Re: [ceph-users] rsync mirror download.ceph.com - broken file on rsync server

On 27-10-15 11:45, Björn Lässig wrote: > On 10/27/2015 10:22 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> On 27-10-15 09:51, Björn Lässig wrote: >>> after having some problems with ipv6 and download.ceph.com, i made a >>> mirror (debian-hammer only) for my ipv6-only cluster. >> >> I see you are from

Re: [ceph-users] BAD nvme SSD performance

On 10/27/2015 06:37 AM, Matteo Dacrema wrote: Hi, thanks for all the replies. I've found the issue: The Samsung nvme SSD has poor performance with sync=1. It reach only 4/5 k iops with randwrite ops. Using Intel DC S3700 SSDs I'm able to saturate the CPU. I'm using hammer v 0.94.5 on Ubuntu