Re: "Incomplete" pg's

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

 



Thanks Janne,

(Inline)

> On Mar 4, 2022, at 1:04 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic.dz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Due to a mistake on my part, I accidentally destroyed more OSDs that I needed to, and I ended up with 2 pgs in “incomplete” state.
> 
>> Doing “ceph pg query on one of the pgs that is incomplete, I get the following (somewhere in the output):
>> 
>>            "up": [
>>                12,
>>                6,
>>                20
>>            ],
>>            "acting": [
>>                12,
>>                6,
>>                20
>>            ],
>>            "avail_no_missing": [],
>>            "object_location_counts": [],
>>            "blocked_by": [
>>                3,
>>                4,
>>                5
>>            ],
>>            "up_primary": 12,
>>            "acting_primary": 12,
>>            "purged_snaps": []
>> 
>> 
>> I am assuming this means that OSDs 3,4,5 were the original ones (that are now destroyed), but I don’t understand why the output shows 12, 6, 20 as active.
> 
> I can't help with the cephfs part since we don't use that, but I think
> the above output means "since 3,4,5 are gone, 12,6 and 20 are now
> designated as the replacement OSDs to hold the PG", but since 3,4,5
> are gone, none of them can backfill into 12,6,20, so 12,6,20 are
> waiting for this PG to appear "somewhere" so they can recover.
> 
I thought that if that was the case 3,4,5 should be listed as “active”, with 12,6,20 as “up”..

My corcern about cephfs is that, since it is a layer above the ceph base layer, there maybe the corrective action needs to start at cephfs, otherwise cephfs won’t be aware of any changes happening underneath.

> Perhaps you can force pg creation, so that 12,6,20 gets an empty PG to
> start the pool again, and then hope that the next rsync will fill in
> any missing slots, but this part I am not so sure about since I don't
> know what other data apart from file contents may exist in a cephfs
> pool.
> 
> Is the worst-case (dropping the pool, recreating it and running a full
> rsync again) a possible way out? If so, you can perhaps test and see
> if you can bridge the gap of the missing PGs, but if resyncing is out,
> then wait for suggestions from someone more qualified at cephfs stuff
> than me. ;)

I’ll wait a bit more for some other people to suggest something.  At this point I don’t have anything with high confidence that it will work.

Thanks!

George

> 
> -- 
> May the most significant bit of your life be positive.

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx




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


  Powered by Linux