When you see another one, can you include the xattrs on the files as well (you can use the attr(1) utility)? -Sam On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: > That image is the root file system for a linux ldap server. > > -- > Randall Smith > Adams State University > www.adams.edu > 719-587-7741 > > On Jul 12, 2014 10:34 AM, "Samuel Just" <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: >> >> Here's a diff of the two files. One of the two files appears to >> contain ceph leveldb keys? Randy, do you have an idea of what this >> rbd image is being used for (rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29, that is). >> -Sam >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: >> > Greetings, >> > >> > Well it happened again with two pgs this time, still in the same rbd >> > image. >> > They are at http://people.adams.edu/~rbsmith/osd.tar. I think I grabbed >> > the >> > files correctly. If not, let me know and I'll try again on the next >> > failure. >> > It certainly is happening often enough. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> And grab the xattrs as well. >> >> -Sam >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Right. >> >> > -Sam >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm using xfs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Also, when, in a previous email, you asked if I could send the >> >> >> object, >> >> >> do >> >> >> you mean the files from each server named something like this: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ./3.c6_head/DIR_6/DIR_C/DIR_5/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000000b__head_34DC35C6__3 >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Also, what filesystem are you using? >> >> >>> -Sam >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Sage Weil <sweil at redhat.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> > One other thing we might also try is catching this earlier (on >> >> >>> > first >> >> >>> > read >> >> >>> > of corrupt data) instead of waiting for scrub. If you are not >> >> >>> > super >> >> >>> > performance sensitive, you can add >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > filestore sloppy crc = true >> >> >>> > filestore sloppy crc block size = 524288 >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > That will track and verify CRCs on any large (>512k) writes. >> >> >>> > Smaller >> >> >>> > block sizes will give more precision and more checks, but will >> >> >>> > generate >> >> >>> > larger xattrs and have a bigger impact on performance... >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > sage >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Samuel Just wrote: >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> When you get the next inconsistency, can you copy the actual >> >> >>> >> objects >> >> >>> >> from the osd store trees and get them to us? That might provide >> >> >>> >> a >> >> >>> >> clue. >> >> >>> >> -Sam >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> >> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Samuel Just >> >> >>> >> > <sam.just at inktank.com> >> >> >>> >> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> It could be an indication of a problem on osd 5, but the >> >> >>> >> >> timing >> >> >>> >> >> is >> >> >>> >> >> worrying. Can you attach your ceph.conf? >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > Attached. >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Have there been any osds >> >> >>> >> >> going down, new osds added, anything to cause recovery? >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > I upgraded to firefly last week. As part of the upgrade I, >> >> >>> >> > obviously, >> >> >>> >> > had to >> >> >>> >> > restart every osd. Also, I attempted to switch to the optimal >> >> >>> >> > tunables but >> >> >>> >> > doing so degraded 27% of my cluster and made most of my VMs >> >> >>> >> > unresponsive. I >> >> >>> >> > switched back to the legacy tunables and everything was happy >> >> >>> >> > again. >> >> >>> >> > Both of >> >> >>> >> > those operations, of course, caused recoveries. I have made no >> >> >>> >> > changes since >> >> >>> >> > then. >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Anything in >> >> >>> >> >> dmesg to indicate an fs problem? >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > Nothing. The system went inconsistent again this morning, >> >> >>> >> > again >> >> >>> >> > on >> >> >>> >> > the same >> >> >>> >> > rbd but different osds this time. >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > 2014-07-11 05:48:12.857657 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 904 >> >> >>> >> > : >> >> >>> >> > [ERR] 3.76 >> >> >>> >> > shard 1: soid 1280076/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000025c/head//3 >> >> >>> >> > digest >> >> >>> >> > 2198242284 != known digest 3879754377 >> >> >>> >> > 2014-07-11 05:49:29.020024 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 905 >> >> >>> >> > : >> >> >>> >> > [ERR] 3.76 >> >> >>> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> >> >>> >> > 2014-07-11 05:49:29.020029 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 906 >> >> >>> >> > : >> >> >>> >> > [ERR] 3.76 >> >> >>> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > $ ceph health detail >> >> >>> >> > HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors >> >> >>> >> > pg 3.76 is active+clean+inconsistent, acting [1,2] >> >> >>> >> > 1 scrub errors >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Have you recently changed any >> >> >>> >> >> settings? >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > I upgraded from bobtail to dumpling to firefly. >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> -Sam >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Randy Smith >> >> >>> >> >> <rbsmith at adams.edu> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> > Greetings, >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > Just a follow up on my original issue. =ceph pg repair ...= >> >> >>> >> >> > fixed >> >> >>> >> >> > the >> >> >>> >> >> > problem. However, today I got another inconsistent pg. It's >> >> >>> >> >> > interesting >> >> >>> >> >> > to >> >> >>> >> >> > me that this second error is in the same rbd image and >> >> >>> >> >> > appears >> >> >>> >> >> > to >> >> >>> >> >> > be >> >> >>> >> >> > "close" >> >> >>> >> >> > to the previously inconsistent pg. (Even more fun, osd.5 >> >> >>> >> >> > was >> >> >>> >> >> > the >> >> >>> >> >> > secondary >> >> >>> >> >> > in the first error and is the primary here though the other >> >> >>> >> >> > osd is >> >> >>> >> >> > different.) >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > Is this indicative of a problem on osd.5 or perhaps a clue >> >> >>> >> >> > into >> >> >>> >> >> > what's >> >> >>> >> >> > causing firefly to be so inconsistent? >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > The relevant log entries are below. >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:50:48.646407 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 >> >> >>> >> >> > 163 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> >>> >> >> > shard 2: soid >> >> >>> >> >> > 34dc35c6/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000000b/head//3 >> >> >>> >> >> > digest >> >> >>> >> >> > 2256074002 != known digest 3998068918 >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.936076 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 >> >> >>> >> >> > 164 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> >>> >> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.936082 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 >> >> >>> >> >> > 165 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> >>> >> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:38:53.990328 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 >> >> >>> >> >> > 257 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.41 >> >> >>> >> >> > shard 1: soid >> >> >>> >> >> > e183cc41/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000024c/head//3 >> >> >>> >> >> > digest >> >> >>> >> >> > 3224286363 != known digest 3409342281 >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701276 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 >> >> >>> >> >> > 258 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.41 >> >> >>> >> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701281 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 >> >> >>> >> >> > 259 >> >> >>> >> >> > : >> >> >>> >> >> > [ERR] >> >> >>> >> >> > 3.41 >> >> >>> >> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Chahal, Sudip >> >> >>> >> >> > <sudip.chahal at intel.com> >> >> >>> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks - so it appears that the advantage of the 3rd >> >> >>> >> >> >> replica >> >> >>> >> >> >> (relative >> >> >>> >> >> >> to >> >> >>> >> >> >> 2 replicas) has to do much more with recovering from two >> >> >>> >> >> >> concurrent OSD >> >> >>> >> >> >> failures than with inconsistencies found during deep scrub >> >> >>> >> >> >> - >> >> >>> >> >> >> would you >> >> >>> >> >> >> agree? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Re: repair - do you mean the "repair" process during deep >> >> >>> >> >> >> scrub >> >> >>> >> >> >> - if >> >> >>> >> >> >> yes, >> >> >>> >> >> >> this is automatic - correct? >> >> >>> >> >> >> Or >> >> >>> >> >> >> Are you referring to the explicit manually initiated >> >> >>> >> >> >> repair >> >> >>> >> >> >> commands? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -Sudip >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> >> >> >> From: Samuel Just [mailto:sam.just at inktank.com] >> >> >>> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:50 AM >> >> >>> >> >> >> To: Chahal, Sudip >> >> >>> >> >> >> Cc: Christian Eichelmann; ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Repair I think will tend to choose the copy with the >> >> >>> >> >> >> lowest >> >> >>> >> >> >> osd >> >> >>> >> >> >> number >> >> >>> >> >> >> which is not obviously corrupted. Even with three >> >> >>> >> >> >> replicas, >> >> >>> >> >> >> it >> >> >>> >> >> >> does >> >> >>> >> >> >> not do >> >> >>> >> >> >> any kind of voting at this time. >> >> >>> >> >> >> -Sam >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Chahal, Sudip >> >> >>> >> >> >> <sudip.chahal at intel.com> >> >> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> > I've a basic related question re: Firefly operation - >> >> >>> >> >> >> > would >> >> >>> >> >> >> > appreciate >> >> >>> >> >> >> > any insights: >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > With three replicas, if checksum inconsistencies across >> >> >>> >> >> >> > replicas are >> >> >>> >> >> >> > found during deep-scrub then: >> >> >>> >> >> >> > a. does the majority win or is the primary >> >> >>> >> >> >> > always >> >> >>> >> >> >> > the >> >> >>> >> >> >> > winner >> >> >>> >> >> >> > and used to overwrite the secondaries >> >> >>> >> >> >> > b. is this reconciliation done >> >> >>> >> >> >> > automatically >> >> >>> >> >> >> > during >> >> >>> >> >> >> > deep-scrub or does each reconciliation have to be >> >> >>> >> >> >> > executed >> >> >>> >> >> >> > manually >> >> >>> >> >> >> > by the >> >> >>> >> >> >> > administrator? >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > With 2 replicas - how are things different (if at all): >> >> >>> >> >> >> > a. The primary is declared the winner - >> >> >>> >> >> >> > correct? >> >> >>> >> >> >> > b. is this reconciliation done >> >> >>> >> >> >> > automatically >> >> >>> >> >> >> > during >> >> >>> >> >> >> > deep-scrub or does it have to be done "manually" because >> >> >>> >> >> >> > there >> >> >>> >> >> >> > is no >> >> >>> >> >> >> > majority? >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > -Sudip >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> >> >> >> > From: ceph-users >> >> >>> >> >> >> > [mailto:ceph-users-bounces at lists.ceph.com] >> >> >>> >> >> >> > On >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Behalf >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Of Samuel Just >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:16 AM >> >> >>> >> >> >> > To: Christian Eichelmann >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > Can you attach your ceph.conf for your osds? >> >> >>> >> >> >> > -Sam >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Christian Eichelmann >> >> >>> >> >> >> > <christian.eichelmann at 1und1.de> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I can also confirm that after upgrading to firefly both >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> our >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> clusters (test and live) were going from 0 scrub errors >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> each >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> about >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 6 Month to about 9-12 per week... >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> This also makes me kind of nervous, since as far as I >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> know >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> everything >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> "ceph pg repair" does, is to copy the primary object to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> all >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> replicas, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> no matter which object is the correct one. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Of course the described method of manual checking works >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> (for >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> pools >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> with more than 2 replicas), but doing this in a large >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> cluster >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> nearly >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> every week is horribly timeconsuming and error prone. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> It would be great to get an explanation for the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> increased >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> numbers of >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> scrub errors since firefly. Were they just not detected >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> correctly in >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> previous versions? Or is there maybe something wrong >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> new >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> code? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Acutally, our company is currently preventing our >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> projects >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> move >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ceph because of this problem. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Christian >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Von: ceph-users [ceph-users-bounces at lists.ceph.com]" im >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Auftrag von >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> "Travis Rhoden [trhoden at gmail.com] >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2014 16:24 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> An: Gregory Farnum >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Betreff: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> And actually just to follow-up, it does seem like there >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> are >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> some >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> additional smarts beyond just using the primary to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> overwrite >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> secondaries... Since I captured md5 sums before and >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> after >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> repair, I can say that in this particular instance, the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> secondary >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> copy >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was used to overwrite the primary. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> So, I'm just trusting Ceph to the right thing, and so >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> far >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> seems >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> to, but the comments here about needing to determine >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> correct >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> object and place it on the primary PG make me wonder if >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I've >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> been >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> missing something. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> - Travis >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Travis Rhoden >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <trhoden at gmail.com> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I can also say that after a recent upgrade to Firefly, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> experienced massive uptick in scrub errors. The >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> cluster >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> was >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> on >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> cuttlefish for about a year, and had maybe one or two >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> scrub >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> errors. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> After upgrading to Firefly, we've probably seen 3 to 4 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> dozen >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> in the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> last month or so (was getting 2-3 a day for a few >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> weeks >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> until >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> whole cluster was rescrubbed, it seemed). >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> What I cannot determine, however, is how to know which >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> object >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> is >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> busted? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> For example, just today I ran into a scrub error. The >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> object >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> has >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> two copies and is an 8MB piece of an RBD, and has >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> identical >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> timestamps, identical xattrs names and values. But it >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> definitely >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> has a different >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> MD5 sum. How to know which one is correct? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I've been just kicking off pg repair each time, which >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> seems >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> to just >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> use the primary copy to overwrite the others. Haven't >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> run >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> into any >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> issues with that so far, but it does make me nervous. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> - Travis >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Gregory Farnum >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> <greg at inktank.com> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> It's not very intuitive or easy to look at right now >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> (there >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> are >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> plans from the recent developer summit to improve >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> things), >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> but the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> central log should have output about exactly what >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> objects >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> are >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> busted. You'll then want to compare the copies >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> manually >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> determine which ones are good or bad, get the good >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> copy >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> on >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> primary (make sure you preserve xattrs), and run >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> repair. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> -Greg >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> http://ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Randy Smith >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> <rbsmith at adams.edu> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > Greetings, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > I upgraded to firefly last week and I suddenly >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > received >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > this >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > error: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > health HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > errors >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > ceph health detail shows the following: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors pg >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > 3.c6 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > is >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > active+clean+inconsistent, acting [2,5] >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > 1 scrub errors >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > The docs say that I can run `ceph pg repair 3.c6` >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > to >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > fix >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > this. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > What I want to know is what are the risks of data >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > loss >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > if >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > I run >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > that command in this state and how can I mitigate >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > them? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > -- >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > Randall Smith >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > Computing Services >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > Adams State University >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > 719-587-7741 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> >> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > -- >> >> >>> >> >> > Randall Smith >> >> >>> >> >> > Computing Services >> >> >>> >> >> > Adams State University >> >> >>> >> >> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> >>> >> >> > 719-587-7741 >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> >> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> >> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > -- >> >> >>> >> > Randall Smith >> >> >>> >> > Computing Services >> >> >>> >> > Adams State University >> >> >>> >> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> >>> >> > 719-587-7741 >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >>> >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >>> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Randall Smith >> >> >> Computing Services >> >> >> Adams State University >> >> >> http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> >> 719-587-7741 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Randall Smith >> > Computing Services >> > Adams State University >> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> > 719-587-7741
 |