(CCing the list) Actually, can you could re-do the rados bench run with 'debug journal = 20' along with the other debugging? That should give us better information. -Sam On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > Can you please suggest on where to start profiling osd? If the > bottleneck has related to such non-complex things as directio speed, > I`m sure that I was able to catch it long ago, even crossing around by > results of other types of benchmarks at host system. I`ve just tried > tmpfs under both journals, it has a small boost effect, as expected > because of near-zero i/o delay. May be chunk distribution mechanism > does not work well on such small amount of nodes but right now I don`t > have necessary amount of hardware nodes to prove or disprove that. > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> random-rw: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=2 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W] [100.0% done] [0K/35737K /s] [0/8725 iops] [eta 00m:00s] >> random-rw: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=9647 >> write: io=163840KB, bw=37760KB/s, iops=9439, runt= 4339msec >> clat (usec): min=70, max=39801, avg=104.19, stdev=324.29 >> bw (KB/s) : min=30480, max=43312, per=98.83%, avg=37317.00, stdev=5770.28 >> cpu : usr=1.84%, sys=13.00%, ctx=40961, majf=0, minf=26 >> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued r/w: total=0/40960, short=0/0 >> lat (usec): 100=79.69%, 250=19.89%, 500=0.12%, 750=0.12%, 1000=0.11% >> lat (msec): 2=0.01%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.03%, 20=0.01%, 50=0.01% >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Our journal writes are actually sequential. Could you send FIO >>> results for sequential 4k writes osd.0's journal and osd.1's journal? >>> -Sam >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> FIO output for journal partition, directio enabled, seems good(same >>>> results for ext4 on other single sata disks). >>>> >>>> random-rw: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=2 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/3219K /s] [0/786 iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> random-rw: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=21926 >>>> write: io=163840KB, bw=2327KB/s, iops=581, runt= 70403msec >>>> clat (usec): min=122, max=441551, avg=1714.52, stdev=7565.04 >>>> bw (KB/s) : min= 552, max= 3880, per=100.61%, avg=2341.23, stdev=480.05 >>>> cpu : usr=0.42%, sys=1.34%, ctx=40976, majf=0, minf=42 >>>> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> issued r/w: total=0/40960, short=0/0 >>>> lat (usec): 250=31.70%, 500=0.68%, 750=0.10%, 1000=0.63% >>>> lat (msec): 2=41.31%, 4=20.91%, 10=4.40%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.07% >>>> lat (msec): 500=0.04% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> (CCing the list) >>>>> >>>>> So, the problem isn't the bandwidth. Before we respond to the client, >>>>> we write the operation to the journal. In this case, that operation >>>>> is taking >1s per operation on osd.1. Both rbd and rados bench will >>>>> only allow a limited number of ops in flight at a time, so this >>>>> latency is killing your throughput. For comparison, the latency for >>>>> writing to the journal on osd.0 is < .3s. Can you measure direct io >>>>> latency for writes to your osd.1 journal file? >>>>> -Sam >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Oh, you may confuse with Zabbix metrics - y-axis means Megabytes/s, >>>>>> not Megabits. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> [global] >>>>>>> log dir = /ceph/out >>>>>>> log_file = "" >>>>>>> logger dir = /ceph/log >>>>>>> pid file = /ceph/out/$type$id.pid >>>>>>> [mds] >>>>>>> pid file = /ceph/out/$name.pid >>>>>>> lockdep = 1 >>>>>>> mds log max segments = 2 >>>>>>> [osd] >>>>>>> lockdep = 1 >>>>>>> filestore_xattr_use_omap = 1 >>>>>>> osd data = /ceph/dev/osd$id >>>>>>> osd journal = /ceph/meta/journal >>>>>>> osd journal size = 100 >>>>>>> [mon] >>>>>>> lockdep = 1 >>>>>>> mon data = /ceph/dev/mon$id >>>>>>> [mon.0] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.32 >>>>>>> mon addr = 172.20.1.32:6789 >>>>>>> [mon.1] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.33 >>>>>>> mon addr = 172.20.1.33:6789 >>>>>>> [mon.2] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.35 >>>>>>> mon addr = 172.20.1.35:6789 >>>>>>> [osd.0] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.32 >>>>>>> [osd.1] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.33 >>>>>>> [mds.a] >>>>>>> host = 172.20.1.32 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /dev/sda1 on /ceph type ext4 (rw,barrier=0,user_xattr) >>>>>>> /dev/mapper/system-cephmeta on /ceph/meta type ext4 (rw,barrier=0,user_xattr) >>>>>>> Simple performance tests on those fs shows ~133Mb/s for /ceph and >>>>>>> metadata/. Also both machines do not hold anything else which may >>>>>>> impact osd. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also please note of following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/ZgFdO.png >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First two peaks are related to running rados bench, then goes cluster >>>>>>> recreation, automated debian install and final peaks are dd test. >>>>>>> Surely I can have more precise graphs, but current one probably enough >>>>>>> to state a situation - rbd utilizing about a quarter of possible >>>>>>> bandwidth(if we can count rados bench as 100%). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hmm, there seem to be writes taking as long as 1.5s to hit journal on >>>>>>>> osd.1... Could you post your ceph.conf? Might there be a problem >>>>>>>> with the osd.1 journal disk? >>>>>>>> -Sam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Oh, sorry - they probably inherited rights from log files, fixed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I get 403 Forbidden when I try to download any of the files. >>>>>>>>>> -Sam >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> http://xdel.ru/downloads/ceph-logs/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1/ contains logs related to bench initiated at the osd0 machine and 2/ >>>>>>>>>>> - at osd1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, I'm seeing some very high latency on ops sent to osd.1. Can you >>>>>>>>>>>> post osd.1's logs? >>>>>>>>>>>> -Sam >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, please: http://xdel.ru/downloads/ceph.log.gz >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes 'cur MB/s ' shows zero during rados bench, even if any debug >>>>>>>>>>>>> output disabled and log_file set to the empty value, hope it`s okay. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you set osd and filestore debugging to 20, restart the osds, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rados bench as before, and post the logs? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Sam Just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rados bench 60 write -p data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <skip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total time run: 61.217676 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total writes made: 989 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Write size: 4194304 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bandwidth (MB/sec): 64.622 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Average Latency: 0.989608 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max latency: 2.21701 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Min latency: 0.255315 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here a snip from osd log, seems write size is okay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012-03-21 00:00:39.397066 7fdda86a7700 osd.0 10 pg[0.58( v 10'83 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0'0,10'83] n=50 ec=1 les/c 9/9 8/8/6) [0,1] r=0 lpr=8 mlcod 10'82 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active+clean] removing repgather(0x31b5360 applying 10'83 rep_tid=597 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wfack= wfdisk= op=osd_op(client.4599.0:2533 rb.0.2.000000000040 [write >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1220608~4096] 0.17eb9fd8) v4) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012-03-21 00:00:39.397086 7fdda86a7700 osd.0 10 pg[0.58( v 10'83 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0'0,10'83] n=50 ec=1 les/c 9/9 8/8/6) [0,1] r=0 lpr=8 mlcod 10'82 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active+clean] q front is repgather(0x31b5360 applying 10'83 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rep_tid=597 wfack= wfdisk= op=osd_op(client.4599.0:2533 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rb.0.2.000000000040 [write 1220608~4096] 0.17eb9fd8) v4) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my previous question about rbd chunks, it was really stupid :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/19/2012 11:13 AM, Andrey Korolyov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, I`m using KVM for rbd guests. Surely I`ve been noticed that Sage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned too small value and I`ve changed it to 64M before posting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous message with no success - both 8M and this value cause a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drop. When I tried to wrote small amount of data that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be compared to writeback cache size(both on raw device and ext3 with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync option), following results were made: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just want to clarify that the writeback window isn't a full writeback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache - it doesn't affect reads, and does not help with request merging etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply allows a bunch of writes to be in flight while acking the write to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the guest immediately. We're working on a full-fledged writeback cache that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to replace the writeback window. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/img.1 bs=10M count=10 oflag=direct (almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same without oflag there and in the following samples) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10+0 records in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10+0 records out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 0.864404 s, 121 MB/s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/img.1 bs=10M count=20 oflag=direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20+0 records in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20+0 records out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 209715200 bytes (210 MB) copied, 6.67271 s, 31.4 MB/s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/img.1 bs=10M count=30 oflag=direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30+0 records in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30+0 records out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 314572800 bytes (315 MB) copied, 12.4806 s, 25.2 MB/s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on. Reference test with bs=1M and count=2000 has slightly worse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results _with_ writeback cache than without, as I`ve mentioned before. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here the bench results, they`re almost equal on both nodes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bench: wrote 1024 MB in blocks of 4096 KB in 9.037468 sec at 113 MB/sec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing to check is the size of the writes that are actually being sent by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbd. The guest is probably splitting them into relatively small (128 or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 256k) writes. Ideally it would be sending 4k writes, and this should be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot faster. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the writes being sent by adding debug_ms=1 to the client or osd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The format is osd_op(.*[write OFFSET~LENGTH]). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, because I`ve not mentioned it before, network performance is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to hold fair gigabit connectivity with MTU 1500. Seems that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not interrupt problem or something like it - even if ceph-osd, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethernet card queues and kvm instance pinned to different sets of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cores, nothing changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Greg Farnum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gregory.farnum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like maybe you're using Xen? The "rbd writeback window" option >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only works for userspace rbd implementations (eg, KVM). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are using KVM, you probably want 81920000 (~80MB) rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8192000 (~8MB). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What options are you running dd with? If you run a rados bench from both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, what do the results look like? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, can you do the ceph osd bench on each of your OSDs, please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://ceph.newdream.net/wiki/Troubleshooting#OSD_performance) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Greg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 19, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Andrey Korolyov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More strangely, writing speed drops down by fifteen percent when this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option was set in vm` config(instead of result from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg03685.html). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, I`m using 0.43, but due to crashed osds, ceph has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recompiled with e43546dee9246773ffd6877b4f9495f1ec61cd55 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1468d95101adfad44247016a1399aab6b86708d2 - both cases caused crashes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under heavy load. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Sage Weil<sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mailto:sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx)> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I`ve did some performance tests at the following configuration: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mon0, osd0 and mon1, osd1 - two twelve-core r410 with 32G ram, mon2 - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dom0 with three dedicated cores and 1.5G, mostly idle. First three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disks on each r410 arranged into raid0 and holds osd data when fourth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holds os and osd` journal partition, all ceph-related stuff mounted on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ext4 without barriers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly, I`ve noticed about a difference of benchmark performance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write speed through rbd from small kvm instance running on one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first two machines - when bench gave me about 110Mb/s, writing zeros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to raw block device inside vm with dd was at top speed about 45 mb/s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for vm`fs (ext4 with default options) performance drops to ~23Mb/s. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things get worse, when I`ve started second vm at second host and tried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to continue same dd tests simultaneously - performance fairly divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by half for each instance :). Enabling jumbo frames, playing with cpu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity for ceph and vm instances and trying different TCP congestion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocols gave no effect at all - with DCTCP I have slightly smoother >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network load graph and that`s all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ml please suggest anything to try to improve performance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you try setting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbd writeback window = 8192000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or similar, and see what kind of effect that has? I suspect it'll speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up dd; I'm less sure about ext3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ceph-0.43, libvirt-0.9.8, qemu-1.0.0, kernel 3.2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 -- 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
