On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:40 AM, John Calcote <john.calcote@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've now built the entire code base from a clean checkout of master - > the build completed without errors. However, the main build (as > defined by the README file) does NOT build the documentation - it does > build the man pages, but not the "read-the-docs" rst files. > > One thing I haven't mentioned before: I'm building on Ubuntu 14.04 - I > realize this may be an issue if I'm expected to use a later OS to > build docs. > > Can Anyone help me? I'm just trying to help out here, and I've done > everything myself that could reasonably be expected of a software > engineer with 30 years experience. I may be new to Ceph, but I'm not > new to development, and I'm telling you all, there's a problem with > building the docs. Once again, here's what happens: > > ----------------SNIP---------------- > jcalcote@jmc-u14:~/dev/git/ceph$ ./admin/build-doc > Top Level States: ['RecoveryMachine'] > Unpacking /home/jcalcote/dev/git/ceph/src/pybind/rados > Running setup.py (path:/tmp/pip-awYqow-build/setup.py) egg_info for > package from file:///home/jcalcote/dev/git/ceph/src/pybind/rados > ERROR: Cannot find Cythonized file rados.c > WARNING: Cython is not installed. > Complete output from command python setup.py egg_info: > ERROR: Cannot find Cythonized file rados.c > > WARNING: Cython is not installed. Have you tried installing Cython? I'm surprised you have an otherwise-working build if cython is not installed at all. Docs build working locally here (when running admin/build-doc). John > > ---------------------------------------- > Cleaning up... > Command python setup.py egg_info failed with error code 1 in > /tmp/pip-awYqow-build > Storing debug log for failure in /home/jcalcote/.pip/pip.log > ----------------SNIP---------------- > > Thanks in advance, > John > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Kamble, Nitin A > <Nitin.Kamble@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> I just follow the instructions in README, and it builds everything for me including docs. >> >> - Nitin >> >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Jason Dillaman <jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Have you tried running the "install-deps.sh" script in the 'ceph' root >>> directory? >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:00 PM, John Calcote <john.calcote@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Ok - Sage doesn't do doc - can anyone else help me out? I really need >>>> to build the doc and after some recent changes, I'm getting the error >>>> below when trying to run ./admin/build_doc. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John Calcote <john.calcote@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Hi Sage, >>>>> >>>>> I have a built and tested crush_map.rst doc patch ready to submit via >>>>> github pull request, but after updating to the latest upstream code, I >>>>> find I cannot build the doc anymore. Here's my output: >>>>> >>>>> jcalcote@jmc-u14:~/dev/git/ceph$ ./admin/build-doc >>>>> Top Level States: ['RecoveryMachine'] >>>>> Unpacking /home/jcalcote/dev/git/ceph/src/pybind/rados >>>>> Running setup.py (path:/tmp/pip-bhQUtc-build/setup.py) egg_info for >>>>> package from file:///home/jcalcote/dev/git/ceph/src/pybind/rados >>>>> ERROR: Cannot find Cythonized file rados.c >>>>> WARNING: Cython is not installed. >>>>> Complete output from command python setup.py egg_info: >>>>> ERROR: Cannot find Cythonized file rados.c >>>>> >>>>> WARNING: Cython is not installed. >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>> Cleaning up... >>>>> Command python setup.py egg_info failed with error code 1 in >>>>> /tmp/pip-bhQUtc-build >>>>> Storing debug log for failure in /home/jcalcote/.pip/pip.log >>>>> >>>>> I have installed the few additional doc dependencies required by the >>>>> updated doc_dep.debs.txt. Not sure what's broken... >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, John Calcote wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sage, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for the response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First: I've been writing ceph management software for a large storage >>>>>>> vendor for a year now and this is the first I've heard of this. I'll >>>>>>> admit, all of the bits of "urban knowledge" I've picked up from more >>>>>>> experienced co-workers along the way has pointed me in the direction >>>>>>> of a single rule per ruleset with matching ids, but none of them could >>>>>>> tell me where they learned this "fact". Because these bits of >>>>>>> information were out of context and word-of-mouth in nature, I've >>>>>>> spent a fair amount of time pouring over the Ceph docs to determine >>>>>>> the "real story". All my research for the last few months - both in >>>>>>> the Ceph docs and in the CRUSH whitepaper, as well as from >>>>>>> experimentation where the docs fell short - has lead me to believe >>>>>>> that the intended use of rules and rulesets was different than you >>>>>>> suggest. Don't get me wrong - I believe you know what you're talking >>>>>>> about - I'm just concerned that others who are new to Ceph will come >>>>>>> to the same conclusions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes.. the rule == ruleset was not the intended original approach, but we >>>>>> found that in practice the rulesets didn't add anything useful that >>>>>> you couldn't just as easily (and less confusingly) do with separate rules. >>>>>> We tried to squash them out a few releases back but didn't get all >>>>>> the way there, and taking the final step has some compatibility >>>>>> implications, so we didn't finish. This is the main excuse why it's not >>>>>> well documented. But yes, you're right.. it's not very clear. :( >>>>>> Probably we should, at a minimum, ensure that the original ruleset idea of >>>>>> having multiple rules at the same ruleset *isn't* documented or >>>>>> suggested... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Second: By my experimentation with very late code, Ceph monitor does, >>>>>>> indeed, allow deletion of all rules in a set. It also allows the use >>>>>>> of a ruleset in a pool whose size is outside the size constraints of >>>>>>> all of the rules in the set. One thing I have NOT tried is writing to >>>>>>> a pool in these conditions. Now that I consider it in light of other >>>>>>> such situations, I'm inclined to believe that the write would hang or >>>>>>> fail - probably hang. (I recently set up a pool whose single crush >>>>>>> rule specified replicas on OSDs across more hosts than I had >>>>>>> available, and the write attempt simply hung, and there was no log >>>>>>> information in any logs to indicate a problem.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, we should fix this then. :( >>>>>> >>>>>>> Q: Is there something I can do to help make this issue less fuzzy for >>>>>>> other noobs like myself? I'd be happy to work on docs or do whatever >>>>>>> you suggest. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Let's make sure there aren't docs that suggest multiple rules in a >>>>>> ruleset. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Let's prevent the tools from adding multiple rules in a ruleset. >>>>>> >>>>>> - A cleanup project could remove min/max size for rules, and just make >>>>>> ruleset==ruleid explicitly... >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> sage >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, John Calcote wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I posted this question to the ceph-user list a few days ago but no one >>>>>>>>> responded, so I thought I'd send it to the devel list too: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What happens if I create a pool and associated it with a ruleset (say, >>>>>>>>> set '2', for instance), and then I remove all the rules from set '2'? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Similarly, what happens if I add a single rule to ruleset 2 that's >>>>>>>>> size-constrained to pools of size 2 - 3, but then create a replicated >>>>>>>>> pool of size 4 using that ruleset? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there a fundamental rule that ceph uses (e.g., random selection) to >>>>>>>>> choose osds on which to store the replicas? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1- Ceph mon's should prevent you from removing the rule. If not, that's a >>>>>>>> usability bug. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2- If you somehow get to the point where there is no rule, the PGs >>>>>>>> map to an empty set of OSDs, and they'll probably just show up as 'stale' >>>>>>>> + something or inactive until you fix the pool to point to a valid >>>>>>>> crush rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3- Most of the rule "set" logic has been deprecated/streamlined so that >>>>>>>> for new clusters and new rules there is only one rule per ruleset and the >>>>>>>> ids match up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jason >>> -- >>> 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
