Well, that is the really strange part - Cython is installed on the system - the doc build just reports it missing. John On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:54 AM, John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
