Re: What's the actual justification for min_size?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> a min_size of 1 is dangerous though because it means you are 1 hard disk failure away from losing the objects within that placement group entirely. a min_size of 2 is generally considered the minimum you want but many people ignore that advice, some wish they hadn't. 
> 
> I admit I am having difficulty following why this is the case

I think we have a case of fervently agreeing.

Setting min_size on a specific pool to 1 to allow PG’s to heal is absolutely a normal thing in certain circumstances, but it’s important to

1) Know _exactly_ what you’re doing, to which pool, and why
2) Do it very carefully, changing ‘size’ instead of ‘min_size’ on a busy pool with a bunch of PG’s and data can be quite the rude awakening.
3) Most importantly, _only_ set it for the minimum time needed, with eyes watching the healing, and set it back immediately after all affected PG’s have peered and healed.

The danger, which I think is what Wes was getting at, is in leaving it set to 1 all the time, or forgetting to revert it.  THAT is, as we used to say, begging to lose.

— aad

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux