On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Sage Weil wrote: > 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? Pushed wip-7184. This still needs to be tested, but I probably won't get to it until Monday. If someone wants to give it a go (on a non-production cluster), that'd be great! sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |