Re: [ceph-users] CephFS: Upper limit for number of files in adirectory?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Burkhard Linke wrote: > Hi, > > > On 09/15/2016 12:00 PM, John Spray wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Burkhard Linke >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> does

Re: [ceph-users] mds damage detected - Jewel

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Jim Kilborn wrote: > I have a replicated cache pool and metadata pool which reside on ssd drives, > with a size of 2, backed by a erasure coded data pool > The cephfs filesystem was in a healthy state. I pulled an SSD drive, to > perform an

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure coding general information Openstack+kvm virtual machine block storage

Thanks Wes and Josh for your answers. So, for more production-like environments and more tested procedures in case of failures the default replication seems to be the way to go. Perhaps in next release we will add a storage node with EC. Thanks, On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Wes Dillingham

[ceph-users] Segmentation fault in ceph-authtool (FIPS=1)

Hi, I’m trying to run ceph jewel on centos 7.2 with fips mode=1and got a segmentation fault running ceph-authtool. I’m pretty sure that this is a result of the fips mode. Obviously I would hope that this would work. I will have to try again, but I think that firefly does not have this issue.

Re: [ceph-users] RADOSGW and LDAP

Hi Brian, This issue is fixed upstream in commit 08d54291435e. It looks like this did not make it to Jewel, we're prioritizing this, and will follow up when this and any related LDAP and NFS commits make it there. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Matt - Original Message -

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

Hi Yehuda, Thank you for the idea. I will try to test that and see if it helps. If that is the case, would that be considered a bug with radosgw? I ask because, that version of curl seems to be what is currently standard on RHEL/CentOS 7 (fully updated). I will have to either compile it or

Re: [ceph-users] Erasure coding general information Openstack+kvm virtual machine block storage

Erick, You can use erasure coding but it has to be fronted by a replicated cache tier, or so states the documentation, I have never set up this configuration, and always opt to use RBD directly on replicated pools.

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > Hi Casey, > > That warning message tells users to upgrade to a new version of > libcurl. Telling users to upgrade to a newer version of a base system > package like that sets the user on a trajectory to have to maintain >

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

Hi Lewis, This sounds a lot like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1347904 , currently slated for the upcoming RHEL 7.3 (and CentOS 7.3). There's an SRPM in that BZ that you can rebuild and test out. This method won't require you to keep chasing upstream curl versions forever (curl has a lot of CVEs).

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

Hi Yehuda, Well, again, thank you! I was able to get a package built from the latest curl release, and after upgrading on my radosgw hosts, the load is no longer running high. The load is just sitting at almost nothing and I only see the radosgw process using CPU when it is actually doing

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

In the meantime, we've made changes to radosgw so that it can detect and work around this libcurl bug. You can track the progress of this workaround (currently in master and pending backport to jewel) at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16695. Casey On 09/16/2016 01:38 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:

Re: [ceph-users] High CPU load with radosgw instances

Hi Casey, Thank you for the follow-up. I had just found that one while searching in the tracker. I probably should have done that first(though I guess I was hoping/assuming google would have brought it up(but of course it didn't). Anyway, it is working nicely for me now with the newer