On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:21:43 +1000 Brad Hubbard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Christian Balzer <chibi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > New cluster, Jewel, setting up cache-tiering: > > --- > > Error EPERM: 'readforward' is not a well-supported cache mode and may corrupt your data. pass --yes-i-really-mean-it to force. > > --- > > > > That's new and certainly wasn't there in Hammer, nor did it whine about > > this when upgrading my test cluster to Jewel. > > > > And speaking of whining, I did that about this and readproxy, but not > > their stability (readforward has been working nearly a year flawlessly in > > the test cluster) but their lack of documentation. > > > > So while of course there is no warranty for anything with OSS, is there > > any real reason for the above scaremongering or is that based solely on > > lack of testing/experience? > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8210 and > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8210/commits/90fe8e3d0b1ded6d14a6a43ecbd6c8634f691fbe > may offer some insight. > They do, alas of course immediately raise the following questions: 1. Where is that mode documented? 2. The release notes aren't any particular help there either and issues/PR talk about forward, not readforward as the culprit. 3. What I can gleam from the bits I found, proxy just replaces the forward functionality. Alas what I'm after is a mode that will not promote reads to the cache, aka readforward. Or another set of parameters that will produce the same results. Christian > > > > Christian > > -- > > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > > chibi@xxxxxxx Rakuten Communications > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Rakuten Communications _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |