On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 5:31 PM Georgios Dimitrakakis <giorgis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All right! Thank you very much Jack!
The way I understand this is that it's not necessarily a bad thing. I
mean as long as it doesn't harm any data or
cannot cause any other issue.
Unfortunately my scenario consists of only two OSDs therefore there is
a replication factor of 2 and min_size=1.
What I am trying to figure out is if it's more dangerous to have
min_size=2 rather than 1 in the above scenario and if it gives me any
benefits.
I am already aware of the *golden* rule about the minimum number of
replicas (3) but the cluster will be reformed soon and until then I
would like to know if it's better to go with min_size=2 or not.
Regards,
G.
> If min_size == size, a single OSD failure will place your pool read
> only
>
> On 02/22/2018 11:06 PM, Georgios Dimitrakakis wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to know if there are additional risks when running CEPH
>> with "Min Size" equal to "Replicated Size" for a given pool.
>>
>> What are the drawbacks and what could be go wrong in such a
>> scenario?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> G.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
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
