On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 15, 2014, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > v0.75 291 files changed, 82713 insertions(+), 33495 deletions(-) > > > Upgrading > > ~~~~~~~~~ > > I suggest adding: > > * All (replicated?) pools will likely fail scrubbing because the > per-pool dirty object counts, introduced in 0.75, won't match. This > inconsistency is cleared by a pg repair; unfortunately this is about > as expensive as a a deep-scrub, and it's not automatically scheduled > or retried, like scrubs and deep-scrubs. > > I suppose after the dirty counts are brought to sync, the next scrub > won't find inconsistent counts again, but I haven't got to that point > yet. Whoops! Yeah... > What surprised me was the huge number of objects marked as dirty! It > was at least 14k out of 70k objects in each data pool, and even more in > metadata pools, but it's not like I have messed with this many objects > recently. Could something be amiss there? The dirty state was introduced back in 0.71. It's just the stats total that was added in this release... that probably explains your situation. Which also means this will bite anybody who ran emperor, too. I think I need to introduce some pool flag or something indicating whether the dirty stats should be scrubbed or not, set only on new pools? sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |