In Pablo's unfortunate incident, it was because of a SAN incident, so it's possible that Replica 3 didn't save him. In this scenario, the architecture is more the origin of the incident than the number of replicas. It seems to me that replica 3 exists, by default, since firefly => make replica 2, this is intentional. So I'm not sure if adding a warning (again) is necessary. For HDD, apart from special cases (buffer volume, etc.), it is difficult to justify Replica 2 (especially on platforms several years old). However, I'd rather see a full flash Replica 2 platform with solid backups than Replica 3 without backups (well obviously, Replica 3, or E/C + backup are much better). Le lun. 17 juin 2024 à 19:14, Wesley Dillingham <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > Perhaps Ceph itself should also have a warning pop up (in "ceph -s", "ceph > health detail" etc) when replica and min_size=1 or in an EC if min_size < > k+1. Of course it could be muted but it would give an operator pause > initially when setting that. I think a lot of people assume replica size=2 > is safe enough. I imagine this must have been proposed before. > > Respectfully, > > *Wes Dillingham* > LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesleydillingham> > wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:07 PM Anthony D'Atri <anthony.datri@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> * We use replicated pools >> >> * Replica 2, min replicas 1. >> >> Note to self: Change the docs and default to discourage this. This is >> rarely appropriate in production. >> >> You had multiple overlapping drive failures? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
 |