Paul, many thanks for your reply. Thinking about it, I can't decide if I'd prefer to operate the storage server without redundancy, or have it automatically force a downtime, subjecting me to a rage of my users and my boss. But I think that the typical expectation is that system serves the data while it is able to do so. Since ceph by default does otherwise, may I suggest that this is explained in the docs? As things are now, I needed a trial-and-error approach to figure out why ceph was not working in a setup that I think was hardly exotic, and in fact resembled an ordinary RAID 6. Which leaves us with a mishmash of PG states. Is it normal? If not, would I have avoided it if I created the pool with min_size=k=3 from the start? In other words, does min_size influence the assignment of PGs to OSDs? Or is it only used to force I/O shutdown in the event of OSDs failures? Thank you very much Maciej Puzio On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Paul Emmerich <paul.emmerich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The docs seem wrong here. min_size is available for erasure coded pools and > works like you'd expect it to work. > Still, it's not a good idea to reduce it to the number of data chunks. > > > Paul > > -- > -- > Paul Emmerich > > Looking for help with your Ceph cluster? Contact us at https://croit.io > > croit GmbH > Freseniusstr. 31h > 81247 München > www.croit.io > Tel: +49 89 1896585 90 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |