On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Xiaoxi Chen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In many case we need to tag some OSD with NODOWN/NOOUT/NOUP/NOIN >> tag, but we dont want it cluster wise as these tag may stop other OSDs >> doing self-healthing.As a an example when an recovered OSD need to >> catch up with the OSDMap, to prevent flipping we set >> NODOWN/NOOUT/NOUP, but if other OSD failed by disk error, the failure >> will be hidden and we are in the risk of lossing the data. >> >> Is that reasonable to have these flag work in OSD granularity? >> say ceph osd nodown osd.xxx? >> Quick look at the code seems NODOWN/NOUP is easier as we could >> have new status bits in OSDMap >> /* status bits */ >> #define CEPH_OSD_EXISTS (1<<0) >> #define CEPH_OSD_UP (1<<1) >> #define CEPH_OSD_AUTOOUT (1<<2) /* osd was automatically marked out */ >> #define CEPH_OSD_NEW (1<<3) /* osd is new, never marked in */ >> >> #define CEPH_OSD_NOUP (1<<4) /* osd cannot be marked in */ >> #define CEPH_OSD_NODOWN (1<<5) /* osd cannot be marked out */ >> >> But for NOIN/NOOUT seems a bit struggle as IN/OUT depends on >> weight? Any suggestion? > > This looks reasonable if we can sort out a good interface and suitable > health warnings. For example, ceph health and ceph -s should say "N osds > have noin set", and 'ceph health detail' should tell you which ones. > > Maybe something like > > ceph osd set-osd osd.123 noin > > ? I don't particularly like that but we can't do 'ceph osd set ...' since > that does global osdmap flags. I think we should make this operate on arbitrary named CRUSH nodes rather than just OSDs, so that someone can mark a whole host/rack. John -- 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
