On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:36 AM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have said in the past that an EC pool should have min_size=k+1, for > the same reasons that a replica 3 pool needs min_size=2. > And we've heard several stories about replica 3, min_size=1 leading to > incomplete PGs. > > Taking a quick poll -- did anyone ever suffer an outage on a pool with > k=2, m=1, min_size=2? I don't know about losses, but I'd expect this configuration to be slightly less safe than replica 2 — you lose data after 2 related disks crash, but you have 3 related disks that can fail instead of only 2. -Greg _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |