Hi!While trying to understand erasure coded pools, I would have expected that "min_size" of a pool is equal to the "K" parameter. But it turns out, that it is always K+1.
Isn't the description of erasure coding misleading then? In a K+M setup, I would expect to be good (in the sense of "no service impact"), even if M OSDs are lost. But in reality, my clients would already experience an impact when M-1 OSDs are lost. This means, you should always consider one more spare than you would do in e.g. a classic RAID setup, right?
Joern -- Jörn Clausen Daten- und Rechenzentrum GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel Düsternbrookerweg 20 24105 Kiel
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
