Re: Does "ceph df" use "bogus" copies factor instead of (k, m) for erasure coded pool?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:50 AM Igor Podlesny <ceph-user@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 14:46, Paul Emmerich <paul.emmerich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sorry, I just realized I didn't answer your original question.
> [...]
>
> No problemo. -- I've figured out the answer to my own question earlier anyways.
> And actually gave a hint today
>
>   http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2019-April/034278.html
>
> based on those findings.
>
> > Regarding min_size: yes, you are right about a 2+1 pool being created
> > with min_size 2 by default in the latest Nautilus release.
> > This seems like a bug to me, I've opened a ticket here:
> > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/39307
>
> Looked at it, didn't see any explanation of your point of view. If
> there're 2 active data instances
> (and 3rd is missing) how is it different to replicated pools with 3/2 config(?)

each of these "copies" has only half the data


Paul

>
> [... overquoting removed ...]
>
> --
> End of message. Next message?
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux