Hi Sage,
1. The crushtool grammer fix is working for me. Thanks.
2. I think if an admin puts the extra rack info into the ceph.conf file,
than it should do what expected. I understand your worries but on the
other end ceph is not an end user tool, and people should know what they
do and balance there racks evenly.
Just my two cents.
-martin
Am 11.11.2011 23:51, schrieb Sage Weil:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi,
I used in ceph v0.38 the host and rack feature in the conf during an mkcephfs.
Now I have to problems with the crushmap
1. I cannot compile a ceph genearated crushmap.
crushtool -c file.txt -o file
file.txt:4 error: parse error at '.0'
Whoops, will push a patch to stable shortly. The grammer wasn't
recognizing '.' as a legal character.
2. Why are 2 racks are not enough for 2 failure domains?
From the commit:
If there are>2 racks, separate across racks.
Well, technically they are. My worry is that it's more likely that racks
will have significantly vary capacity (i.e. crush weight) due to, say, 1
full rack and a second 1/2 rack. If the policy forces replicas be placed
across racks things won't balance well.
I suppose there should be an argument like --min-racks that controls that
threshold?
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
