Il giorno mer 3 feb 2021 alle ore 21:22 Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > Lastly, if you can't afford 3x replicas, then use 2+2 erasure coding if > possible. > > I will investigate I heard that erasure coding is slow. Anyway I will write here the reason of this thread: In my customers I have usually proxmox+ceph with: - three servers - three monitors - 6 osd (two per server) - size=3 and min_size=2 I followed the recommendations to stay safe. But one day one disk of one server has broken, osd where at 55%. What happened then? Ceph started filling the remaining OSD to maintain size=3 OSD reached 90% ceph stopped all. Customer VMs froze and customer lost time and some data that was not written on disk. So I got angry.... size=3 and customer still loses time and data? > Cheers, Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 8:49 PM Mario Giammarco <mgiammarco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Thanks Simon and thanks to other people that have replied. >> Sorry but I try to explain myself better. >> It is evident to me that if I have two copies of data, one brokes and >> while >> ceph creates again a new copy of the data also the disk with the second >> copy brokes you lose the data. >> It is obvious and a bit paranoid because many servers on many customers >> run >> on raid1 and so you are saying: yeah you have two copies of the data but >> you can broke both. Consider that in ceph recovery is automatic, with >> raid1 >> some one must manually go to the customer and change disks. So ceph is >> already an improvement in this case even with size=2. With size 3 and min >> 2 >> it is a bigger improvement I know. >> >> What I ask is this: what happens with min_size=1 and split brain, network >> down or similar things: do ceph block writes because it has no quorum on >> monitors? Are there some failure scenarios that I have not considered? >> Thanks again! >> Mario >> >> >> >> Il giorno mer 3 feb 2021 alle ore 17:42 Simon Ironside < >> sironside@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >> >> > On 03/02/2021 09:24, Mario Giammarco wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > Imagine this situation: >> > > - 3 servers with ceph >> > > - a pool with size 2 min 1 >> > > >> > > I know perfectly the size 3 and min 2 is better. >> > > I would like to know what is the worst thing that can happen: >> > >> > Hi Mario, >> > >> > This thread is worth a read, it's an oldie but a goodie: >> > >> > >> > >> http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2016-December/014846.html >> > >> > Especially this post, which helped me understand the importance of >> > min_size=2 >> > >> > >> > >> http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2016-December/014892.html >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Simon >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |