Hi, I was checking the connected sessions on all of my 3 MON nodes with this command: ceph daemon mon.<id> sessions | grep -v luminous This returns the following 2 clients featuring 0x27018fb86aa42ada and 0x27018eb84aa42a52 This is mapping to OS / Kernel: 0x27018fb86aa42ada Debian 10.1 Kernel 5.0.21-1-pve and SLES 12SP4 Kernel 4.12.14-95.13-default 0x27018eb84aa42a52 SLES 12SP3 4.4.176-94.88-default and SLES 12SP3 4.4.180-94.97-default and SLES 12SP4 4.4.156-94.64-default Based on your previous information 0x27018fb86aa42ada and 0x27018eb84aa42a52 is ready for upmap. But then I wonder why the output of ceph daemon mon.<id> sessions marks these clients as "jewel"? I have checked the installed ceph version on each client and can confirm that it is: ceph version 12.2 luminous This would drive the conclusion that the ouput of ceph daemon mon.<id> sessions is pointing incorrectly to "jewel". Regards Thomas Am 16.09.2019 um 17:36 schrieb Ilya Dryomov: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:10 PM Thomas Schneider <74cmonty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Wonderbra. >> >> I found some relevant sessions on 2 of 3 monitor nodes. >> And I found some others: >> root@ld5505:~# ceph daemon mon.ld5505 sessions | grep 0x40106b84a842a42 >> root@ld5505:~# ceph daemon mon.ld5505 sessions | grep -v luminous >> [ >> "MonSession(client.32679861 v1:10.97.206.92:0/1183647891 is open >> allow *, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.32692978 v1:10.97.206.91:0/3689092992 is open >> allow *, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.11935413 v1:10.96.6.116:0/3187655474 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.3941901 v1:10.76.179.23:0/2967896845 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.28313343 v1:10.76.177.108:0/1303617860 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.29311725 v1:10.97.206.94:0/224438037 is open >> allow *, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.4535833 v1:10.76.177.133:0/1269608815 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.3919902 v1:10.96.4.243:0/293623521 is open allow >> r, features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.35678944 v1:10.76.179.211:0/4218086982 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.35751316 v1:10.76.179.30:0/1348696702 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.28246527 v1:10.96.4.228:0/1495661381 is open >> allow r, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(client.3917843 v1:10.76.179.22:0/489863209 is open allow >> r, features 0x27018fb86aa42ada (jewel))", >> "MonSession(unknown.0 - is open allow r, features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 >> (jewel))", >> ] >> >> Would it make sense to shutdown these clients, too? >> >> What confuses me is that the list includes clients that belong to the >> Ceph cluster, namely 10.97.206.0/24. >> All nodes of the Ceph cluster are identical in terms of OS, kernel, Ceph. > The above output seems consistent with your "ceph features" output: it > lists clients with features 0x27018eb84aa42a52 and 0x27018fb86aa42ada. > Like I said in my previous email, both of these support upmap. > > If you temporarily shut them down, set-require-min-compat-client will > work without --yes-i-really-mean-it. > > Thanks, > > Ilya _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |