On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yes, there were osd daemons running on the same node that the monitor was > running on. If that is the case then i will run a test case with the > monitor running on a different node where no osd is running and see what happens. Thank you. Hi Isaac, Any luck? Does the problem reproduce with the mon running on a separate host? -sam > > Isaac > > ________________________________ > From: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:29 PM > Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster > > jIsaac, > I'm sorry I haven't been able to wrangle any time to look into this > more yet, but Sage pointed out in a related thread that there might be > some buggy handling of things like this if the OSD and the monitor are > located on the same host. Am I correct in assuming that with your > small cluster, all your OSDs are co-located with a monitor daemon? > -Greg > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Gregory, i recreated the osd down problem again this morning on two nodes (g13ct, g14ct). First, i created a 1-node cluster on g13ct (with osd.0, 1 ,2) and then added host g14ct (osd3. 4, 5). osd.1 went down for about 1 minute and half after adding osd 3, 4, 5 were adde4d. i have included the routing table of each node at the time osd.1 went down. ceph.conf and ceph-osd.1.log files are attached. The crush map was default. Also, it could be a timing issue because it does not always fail when using default crush map, it takes several trials before you see it. Thank you. >> >> >> [root@g13ct ~]# netstat -r >> Kernel IP routing table >> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface >> default 133.164.98.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 >> 133.164.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> [root@g13ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> >> >> [root@g14ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> [root@g14ct ~]# netstat -r >> Kernel IP routing table >> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface >> default 133.164.98.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 >> 133.164.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> [root@g14ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> >> >> >> >> Isaac >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:51 AM >> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >> >> >> >> Gregory, the network physical layout is simple, the two networks are >> separate. the 192.168.0 and the 192.168.1 are not subnets within a >> network. >> >> Isaac >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:28 PM >> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >> >> What's the physical layout of your networking? This additional log may prove helpful as well, but I really need a bit more context in evaluating the messages I see from the first one. :) >> -Greg >> >> >> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Gregory, i tried send the the attached debug output several times and >>> the mail server rejected them all probably becauseof the file size so i cut the log file size down and it is attached. You will see the >>> reconnection failures by the error message line below. The ceph version >>> is 0.56 >>> >>> >>> it appears to be a timing issue because with the flag (debug ms=1) turned on, the system ran slower and became harder to fail. >>> I >>> ran it several times and finally got it to fail on (osd.0) using >>> default crush map. The attached tar file contains log files for all >>> components on g8ct plus the ceph.conf. By the way, the log file contain only the last 1384 lines where the error occurs. >>> >>> >>> I started with a 1-node cluster on host g8ct (osd.0, osd.1, osd.2) and then added host g13ct (osd.3, osd.4, osd.5) >>> >>> >>> id weight type name up/down reweight >>> -1 6 root default >>> -3 6 rack unknownrack >>> -2 3 host g8ct >>> 0 1 osd.0 down 1 >>> 1 1 osd.1 up 1 >>> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> -4 3 host g13ct >>> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >>> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >>> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> The error messages are in ceph.log and ceph-osd.0.log: >>> >>> ceph.log:2013-01-08 >>> 05:41:38.080470 osd.0 192.168.0.124:6801/25571 3 : [ERR] map e15 had >>> wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my >>> 192.168.1.124:6802/25571) >>> ceph-osd.0.log:2013-01-08 05:41:38.080458 7f06757fa710 0 log [ERR] : map e15 had wrong cluster addr >>> (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my 192.168.1.124:6802/25571) >>> >>> >>> >>> [root@g8ct ceph]# ceph -v >>> ceph version 0.56 (1a32f0a0b42f169a7b55ed48ec3208f6d4edc1e8) >>> >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx)> >>> To: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx (mailto:zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx)> >>> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)> >>> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 1:27 PM >>> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >>> >>> On Monday, January 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote: >>> >>> >>> When i add a new host (with osd's) to my existing cluster, 1 or 2 >>> previous osd(s) goes down for about 2 minutes and then they come back >>> up. >>> > >>> > >>> > [root@h1ct ~]# ceph osd tree >>> > >>> > # id weight type name up/down reweight >>> > -1 >>> > 3 root default >>> > -3 3 rack unknownrack >>> > -2 3 host h1 >>> > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >>> > 1 1 osd.1 up 1 >>> > 2 >>> > 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> >>> >>> For example, after adding host h2 (with 3 new osd) to the above cluster >>> and running the "ceph osd tree" command, i see this: >>> > >>> > >>> > [root@h1 ~]# ceph osd tree >>> > >>> > # id weight type name up/down reweight >>> > -1 6 root default >>> > -3 >>> > 6 rack unknownrack >>> > -2 3 host h1 >>> > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >>> > 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >>> > 2 >>> > 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> > -4 3 host h2 >>> > 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >>> > 4 1 osd.4 up >>> > 1 >>> > 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >>> >>> >>> The down osd always come back up after 2 minutes or less andi see the >>> following error message in the respective osd log file: >>> > 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613028 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open >>> > /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 1073741824 bytes, block size >>> > 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0 >>> > 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613122 >>> > 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: >>> > 1073741824 bytes, block size 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0 >>> > 2013-01-07 >>> > 04:42:10.006533 7fec746f7710 0 -- 192.168.0.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.123:6800/18287 pipe(0x7fec20000e10 sd=31 :6808 pgs=0 cs=0 >>> > l=0).accept connect_seq 0 vs existing 0 state connecting >>> > 2013-01-07 >>> > 04:45:29.834341 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45438 pgs=7 cs=1 >>> > l=0).fault, initiating reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:29.835748 >>> > 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45439 pgs=15 cs=3 >>> > l=0).fault, initiating reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.835219 7fec743f4710 0 -- >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 >>> > pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45894 pgs=482 cs=903 l=0).fault, initiating >>> > reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.837318 7fec743f4710 0 -- >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 >>> > pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45895 pgs=483 cs=905 l=0).fault, initiating >>> > reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.851984 7fec637fe710 0 log [ERR] : map >>> > e27 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6808/19449 != my >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449) >>> > >>> > Also, this only happens only when the cluster ip address and the public ip address are different for example >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > [osd.0] >>> > host = g8ct >>> > public address = 192.168.0.124 >>> > cluster address = 192.168.1.124 >>> > btrfs devs = /dev/sdb >>> > >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > >>> > but does not happen when they are the same. Any idea what may be the issue? >>> This isn't familiar to me at first glance. What version of Ceph are you using? >>> >>> If >>> this is easy to reproduce, can you pastebin your ceph.conf and then add >>> "debug ms = 1" to your global config and gather up the logs from each >>> daemon? >>> -Greg >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Attachments: >>> - ceph-osd.0.log.tar.gz >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Gregory, i recreated the osd down problem again this morning on two nodes (g13ct, g14ct). First, i created a 1-node cluster on g13ct (with osd.0, 1 ,2) and then added host g14ct (osd3. 4, 5). osd.1 went down for about 1 minute and half after adding osd 3, 4, 5 were adde4d. i have included the routing table of each node at the time osd.1 went down. ceph.conf and ceph-osd.1.log files are attached. The crush map was default. Also, it could be a timing issue because it does not always fail when using default crush map, it takes several trials before you see it. Thank you. >> >> >> [root@g13ct ~]# netstat -r >> Kernel IP routing table >> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface >> default 133.164.98.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 >> 133.164.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> [root@g13ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> >> >> [root@g14ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> [root@g14ct ~]# netstat -r >> Kernel IP routing table >> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface >> default 133.164.98.250 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 >> 133.164.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3 >> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth5 >> [root@g14ct ~]# ceph osd tree >> >> # id weight type name up/down reweight >> -1 6 root default >> -3 6 rack unknownrack >> -2 3 host g13ct >> 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >> 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >> -4 3 host g14ct >> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >> >> >> >> >> >> Isaac >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:51 AM >> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >> >> >> >> Gregory, the network physical layout is simple, the two networks are >> separate. the 192.168.0 and the 192.168.1 are not subnets within a >> network. >> >> Isaac >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:28 PM >> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >> >> What's the physical layout of your networking? This additional log may prove helpful as well, but I really need a bit more context in evaluating the messages I see from the first one. :) >> -Greg >> >> >> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Gregory, i tried send the the attached debug output several times and >>> the mail server rejected them all probably becauseof the file size so i cut the log file size down and it is attached. You will see the >>> reconnection failures by the error message line below. The ceph version >>> is 0.56 >>> >>> >>> it appears to be a timing issue because with the flag (debug ms=1) turned on, the system ran slower and became harder to fail. >>> I >>> ran it several times and finally got it to fail on (osd.0) using >>> default crush map. The attached tar file contains log files for all >>> components on g8ct plus the ceph.conf. By the way, the log file contain only the last 1384 lines where the error occurs. >>> >>> >>> I started with a 1-node cluster on host g8ct (osd.0, osd.1, osd.2) and then added host g13ct (osd.3, osd.4, osd.5) >>> >>> >>> id weight type name up/down reweight >>> -1 6 root default >>> -3 6 rack unknownrack >>> -2 3 host g8ct >>> 0 1 osd.0 down 1 >>> 1 1 osd.1 up 1 >>> 2 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> -4 3 host g13ct >>> 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >>> 4 1 osd.4 up 1 >>> 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> The error messages are in ceph.log and ceph-osd.0.log: >>> >>> ceph.log:2013-01-08 >>> 05:41:38.080470 osd.0 192.168.0.124:6801/25571 3 : [ERR] map e15 had >>> wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my >>> 192.168.1.124:6802/25571) >>> ceph-osd.0.log:2013-01-08 05:41:38.080458 7f06757fa710 0 log [ERR] : map e15 had wrong cluster addr >>> (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my 192.168.1.124:6802/25571) >>> >>> >>> >>> [root@g8ct ceph]# ceph -v >>> ceph version 0.56 (1a32f0a0b42f169a7b55ed48ec3208f6d4edc1e8) >>> >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx)> >>> To: Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx (mailto:zmoo76b@xxxxxxxxx)> >>> Cc: "ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)> >>> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 1:27 PM >>> Subject: Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster >>> >>> On Monday, January 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote: >>> >>> >>> When i add a new host (with osd's) to my existing cluster, 1 or 2 >>> previous osd(s) goes down for about 2 minutes and then they come back >>> up. >>> > >>> > >>> > [root@h1ct ~]# ceph osd tree >>> > >>> > # id weight type name up/down reweight >>> > -1 >>> > 3 root default >>> > -3 3 rack unknownrack >>> > -2 3 host h1 >>> > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >>> > 1 1 osd.1 up 1 >>> > 2 >>> > 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> >>> >>> For example, after adding host h2 (with 3 new osd) to the above cluster >>> and running the "ceph osd tree" command, i see this: >>> > >>> > >>> > [root@h1 ~]# ceph osd tree >>> > >>> > # id weight type name up/down reweight >>> > -1 6 root default >>> > -3 >>> > 6 rack unknownrack >>> > -2 3 host h1 >>> > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 >>> > 1 1 osd.1 down 1 >>> > 2 >>> > 1 osd.2 up 1 >>> > -4 3 host h2 >>> > 3 1 osd.3 up 1 >>> > 4 1 osd.4 up >>> > 1 >>> > 5 1 osd.5 up 1 >>> >>> >>> The down osd always come back up after 2 minutes or less andi see the >>> following error message in the respective osd log file: >>> > 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613028 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open >>> > /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 1073741824 bytes, block size >>> > 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0 >>> > 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613122 >>> > 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: >>> > 1073741824 bytes, block size 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0 >>> > 2013-01-07 >>> > 04:42:10.006533 7fec746f7710 0 -- 192.168.0.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.123:6800/18287 pipe(0x7fec20000e10 sd=31 :6808 pgs=0 cs=0 >>> > l=0).accept connect_seq 0 vs existing 0 state connecting >>> > 2013-01-07 >>> > 04:45:29.834341 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45438 pgs=7 cs=1 >>> > l=0).fault, initiating reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:29.835748 >>> > 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> >>> > 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45439 pgs=15 cs=3 >>> > l=0).fault, initiating reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.835219 7fec743f4710 0 -- >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 >>> > pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45894 pgs=482 cs=903 l=0).fault, initiating >>> > reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.837318 7fec743f4710 0 -- >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 >>> > pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45895 pgs=483 cs=905 l=0).fault, initiating >>> > reconnect >>> > 2013-01-07 04:45:30.851984 7fec637fe710 0 log [ERR] : map >>> > e27 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6808/19449 != my >>> > 192.168.1.124:6808/19449) >>> > >>> > Also, this only happens only when the cluster ip address and the public ip address are different for example >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > [osd.0] >>> > host = g8ct >>> > public address = 192.168.0.124 >>> > cluster address = 192.168.1.124 >>> > btrfs devs = /dev/sdb >>> > >>> > .... >>> > .... >>> > >>> > but does not happen when they are the same. Any idea what may be the issue? >>> This isn't familiar to me at first glance. What version of Ceph are you using? >>> >>> If >>> this is easy to reproduce, can you pastebin your ceph.conf and then add >>> "debug ms = 1" to your global config and gather up the logs from each >>> daemon? >>> -Greg >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Attachments: >>> - ceph-osd.0.log.tar.gz >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
