Hi,
just a short note on automatic rule creation. A SUSE engineer pointed
me to the fact that this is actually documented [1] in the pool
creation section, under [crush-rule-name] it says:
For replicated pools it is the rule specified by the osd pool
default crush rule config variable. This rule must exist. For
erasure pools it is erasure-code if the default erasure code profile
is used or {pool-name} otherwise. This rule will be created
implicitly if it doesn’t exist already.
I can't say anything about the inconsistency though, have you checked
the logs for hints?
Regards,
Eugen
[1] https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/pools/#create-a-pool
Zitat von aoanla@xxxxxxxxx:
Thanks for the suggestion, however...
As noted above: the previous invocations of ceph osd pool create
have exactly the same structure (and succeeded) as the one which
fails.
I used the long form because trying to use the short form
(ceph osd pool create ec2pool 2048 2048 erasure glasgow-eci-test,
for example)
produced other "fatal" errors [complaining about my not specifying
the final numeric positional parameter, even though it's optional].
Weirdly, though, you're right: going back to the short form suddenly
works again...
so I'd like to revise my question to:
"why is the behaviour (and requirements) of ceph osd pool create
inconsistent - sometimes failing if you don't specify all the
parameters, even optional ones, and sometimes failing if you do,
despite the 'rules' you're following being the same?"
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
