As far as why you needed to reduce min_size, my guess would be that recovery would have happened as long as k copies were up. Were the PG's refusing to backfill or just hang backfilled yet?
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 9:24 PM Chad W Seys <cwseys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Recently our cluster lost a drive and a node (3 drives) at the same
time. Our erasure coded pools are all k2m2, so if all is working
correctly no data is lost.
However, there were 4 PGs that stayed "incomplete" until I finally
took the suggestion in 'ceph health detail' to reduce min_size . (Thanks
for the hint!) I'm not sure what it was (likely 3), but setting it to 2
caused all PGs to become active (though degraded) and the cluster is on
path to recovering fully.
In replicated pools, would not ceph create replicas without the need
to reduce min_size? It seems odd to not recover automatically if
possible. Could someone explain what was going on there?
Also, how to decide what min_size should be?
Thanks!
Chad.
_______________________________________________
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
