Hello, I have a trick question for Mr. Turner's scenario:Let's assume size=2, min_size=1 -We are looking at pg "A" acting [1, 2] -osd 1 goes down, OK -osd 1 comes back up, backfill of pg "A" commences from osd 2 to osd 1, OK -osd 2 goes down (and therefore pg "A" 's backfill to osd 1 is incomplete and stopped) not OK, but this is the case... --> In this event, why does osd 1 accept IO to pg "A" knowing full well, that it's data is outdated and will cause an inconsistent state? Wouldn't it be prudent to deny io to pg "A" until either -osd 2 comes back (therefore we have a clean osd in the acting group) ... backfill would continue to osd 1 of course -or data in pg "A" is manually marked as lost, and then continues operation from osd 1 's (outdated) copy? Thanks in advance, I'm really curious! Denes. On 11/01/2017 06:33 PM, Mario Giammarco
wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com