Sorry, I should have been more clear. The bug actually is due to a difference in an on disk encoding from hammer. An infernalis cluster would never had had such encodings and is fine.
-Sam
On Jun 3, 2016 6:53 AM, "Francois Lafont" <flafdivers@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On 03/06/2016 05:39, Samuel Just wrote:
> Due to http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16113, it would be best to avoid
> setting the sortbitwise flag on jewel clusters upgraded from previous
> versions until we get a point release out with a fix.
>
> The symptom is that setting the sortbitwise flag on a jewel cluster
> upgraded from a previous version can result in some pgs reporting
> spurious unfound objects. Unsetting sortbitwise should cause the PGs
> to go back to normal. Clusters created at jewel don't need to worry
> about this.
Now, I have an Infernalis cluster in production. It's an Infernalis cluster
installed from scratch (not from an upgrade). I intend to upgrade the
cluster to Jewel. Indeed, I have noticed that the flag "sortbitwise" was
set by default in my Infernalis cluster. By the way, I don't know exactly
the meaning of this flag but the cluster is HEALTH_OK with this flag set
by default so I have not changed it.
If I have well understood, to upgrade my Infernalis cluster, I have 2
options:
a) I unset the flag "sortbitwise" via "ceph osd unset sortbitwise", then
I upgrade the cluster to Jewel 10.2.1 and in the next release of Jewel
(I guess 10.2.2) I could set again the flag via "ceph osd set sortbitwise".
b) Or I just wait for the next release of Jewel (10.2.2) without worrying
about the flag "sortbitwise".
1. Is it correct?
2. Can we have data movement when we toggle the flag "sortbitwise"?
--
François Lafont
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
