> Yeah, Ceph will never voluntarily reduce the redundancy. I believe > splitting the "degraded" state into separate "wrongly placed" and > "degraded" (reduced redundancy) states is currently on the menu for > the Giant release, but it's not been done yet. That would greatly improve the accuracy of ceph's status reports. Does ceph currently know about the difference of these states well enough to be smart with prioritizing? Specifically, if I add an OSD and ceph starts moving data around, but during that time an other OSD fails; is ceph smart enough to quickly prioritize reduplicating the lost copies before continuing to move data around (that was still perfectly duplicated)? Thanks, Erik.
 |