- ceph-users - lists.ceph.io

Norton Setup
by paul21thomas9＠gmail.com 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Norton Setup is the best antivirus software that allows you to protect your files as well as your system from various malware and viruses that are willing to attack your systems. Norton antivirus product is designed in a way to scan and eliminate any kind of possible threats such as Trojans, worms and viruses from affecting your personal computer, laptop, smartphone and tablet in the first place. Unlike other antivirus program, Norton holds onto a unique heuristics system to quickly identify the viruses that makes it stand apart as the best security service provider in the masses. You can purchase it from- https://w-wwnorton.com/setup/.

1 0

Resolve radosgw error list
by Nghia Viet Tran 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi everyone, After trigger command radosgw-admin sync error list, Ceph returns the list of errors for each shards in the system e.g., { "shard_id": 30, "entries": [ { "id": "1_1592308047.968415_451.1", "section": "data", "name": "portal-images:76fc5fe2-9f89-4419-b611-ab275000b358.405220.1:8", "timestamp": "2020-06-16T11:47:27.968415Z", "info": { "source_zone": "30bae889-dc13-4957-a536-028394095356", "error_code": 5, "message": "failed to sync bucket instance: (5) Input/output error" } } ] } For further detail, I triggered the command radosgw-admin data sync status --shard-id=30 --source-zone=dc-02 { "shard_id": 30, "marker": { "status": "full-sync", "marker": "", "next_step_marker": "", "total_entries": 0, "pos": 0, "timestamp": "0.000000" }, "pending_buckets": [], "recovering_buckets": [] } Seems like there is no problem in this shard so far… Can anyone help me on what I have to do to remove the errors above? Many thanks! -- Nghia Viet Tran (Mr) mgm technology partners Vietnam Co. Ltd 7 Phan Châu Trinh Đà Nẵng, Vietnam +84 935905659 nghia.viet.tran(a)mgm-tp.com<mailto:nghia.viet.tran@mgm-tp.com> www.mgm-tp.com<https://www.mgm-tp.com/en/> Visit us on LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mgm-technology-partners-vietnam-co-ltd> and Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/mgmTechnologyPartnersVietnam>! Innovation Implemented. General Director: Frank Müller Registered office: 7 Pasteur, Hải Châu 1, Hải Châu, Đà Nẵng MST/Tax 0401703955

1 0

Can't add osd with cephadm as non-root user
by Michael Preuss 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi all, I tried to use Cephadm as non-root, it works, until I tried to install a new osd. I get this Error Message: Error EINVAL: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/mgr_module.py", line 1167, in _handle_command return self.handle_command(inbuf, cmd) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/orchestrator/_interface.py", line 113, in handle_command return dispatch[cmd['prefix']].call(self, cmd, inbuf) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/mgr_module.py", line 311, in call return self.func(mgr, **kwargs) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/orchestrator/_interface.py", line 75, in <lambda> wrapper_copy = lambda *l_args, **l_kwargs: wrapper(*l_args, **l_kwargs) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/orchestrator/_interface.py", line 66, in wrapper return func(*args, **kwargs) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/orchestrator/module.py", line 715, in _daemon_add_osd raise_if_exception(completion) File "/usr/share/ceph/mgr/orchestrator/_interface.py", line 633, in raise_if_exception raise e RuntimeError: cephadm exited with an error code: 1, stderr:Failed to execute command: sudo /usr/bin/cephadm --image docker.io/ceph/ceph:v15.2.4 ceph-volume --fsid 1234abcd --config-json - -- lvm prepare --bluestore --data /dev/sdb --no-systemd Has someone a hint how I can solve this problem? Thanks, Michael

2 2

Module 'cephadm' has failed: auth get failed: failed to find client.crash.ceph0-ote in keyring retval:
by biohazd＠yahoo.com 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

anyone seen this error on the new Ceph 15.2.4 cluster using cpehadm to manage it ? Module 'cephadm' has failed: auth get failed: failed to find client.crash.ceph0-ote in keyring retval:

6 9

ceph crush reweight #osd 0 strange redistribution
by Marcel Kuiper 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi List This is a rephrase of an earlier question that puzzels me. I took out a disk on nautilus 14.2.8 with 'ceph crush reweight osd.111 0'. I expected that PGs would mainly go to osds on other nodes but to my surprise most PG's ended up on osds on the same node. Here is an overview of the number of PG's that got send to an other osd. The node that had osd 111 has osds 108-116 as well NR PG's OSD_ID 1 61 1 83 1 86 3 108 4 109 5 110 2 112 5 113 7 114 5 115 2 116 As you can see only 3 PG's were send to other node's osd's. The rest was send to osds on the same node :-O. There are 81 osds in the same room as osd.111. I would have expected (certainly since node weight decreases with crush reweight) setting to 0 that PG's would mostly go to other nodes. Can someone explain this behaviour? All pools make use of crush_rule 1, min_size = 2, size = 3 with the following rules: "rule_id": 1, "rule_name": "hdd", "ruleset": 1, "type": 1, "min_size": 2, "max_size": 3, "steps": [ { "op": "take", "item": -31, "item_name": "DC3" }, { "op": "choose_firstn", "num": 0, "type": "room" }, { "op": "chooseleaf_firstn", "num": 1, "type": "host" }, ] I cannot attache the complete osd tree but the structure is: ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF -31 1275.35522 root DC3 -32 600.69037 room az-a -39 133.14589 rack rack_W26 -27 66.57289 host st3g3psm2 108 hdd 7.39699 osd.108 up 1.00000 1.00000 109 hdd 7.39699 osd.109 up 1.00000 1.00000 110 hdd 7.39699 osd.110 up 1.00000 1.00000 111 hdd 7.39699 osd.111 up 1.00000 1.00000 112 hdd 7.39699 osd.112 up 1.00000 1.00000 113 hdd 7.39699 osd.113 up 1.00000 1.00000 114 hdd 7.39699 osd.114 up 1.00000 1.00000 115 hdd 7.39699 osd.115 up 1.00000 1.00000 116 hdd 7.39699 osd.116 up 1.00000 1.00000 with 3 rooms, 13 racks, 19 hosts, 172 osds, 3968 PG's, 10 pools. As you see there are racks in the tree but these are not taken into consideration in the crush rule 1. The cluster is not yet fully in use hence the PG to OSD ratio is still low. We expect more pools to be added in the near future Marcel

1 0

Re: Ceph Dashboard and Firefox
by biohazd＠yahoo.com 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

The issue is on the "Firefox Extended release 68.10.0" I switched over to normal Firefox 78.0.2 and it works fine now.

1 0

Help add node to cluster using cephadm
by davidthuong2424＠gmail.com 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

I need help about add node when install ceph with cephadm . When i run cpeh orch add host ceph2 error enoent: new host ceph2 (ceph2) failed check: ['traceback (most recent call last):', Please help me fix it. Thanks & Best Regards David

4 6

Help add node to cluster using cephadm
by Hoài Thương 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Dear Support, I need help about add node when install ceph with cephadm . When i run cpeh orch add host ceph2 error enoent: new host ceph2 (ceph2) failed check: ['traceback (most recent call last):', Please help me fix it. Thanks & Best Regards David

1 0

script for compiling and running the Ceph source code
by Bobby 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi, I am trying to profile the number of invocations to a particular function in Ceph source code. I have instrumented the code with time functions. Can someone please share the script for compiling and running the Ceph source code? I am struggling with it. That would be great help ! BR Bobby !

2 2

Re: osd out vs crush reweight]
by Marcel Kuiper 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi Dominic, This cluster is running 14.2.8 (nautilus) There's 172 osds divided over 19 nodes. There are currently 10 pools. All pools have 3 replica's of data There are 3968 PG's (the cluster is not yet fully in use. The number of PGs is expected to grow) Marcel > Marcel; > > Short answer; yes, it might be expected behavior. > > PG placement is highly dependent on the cluster layout, and CRUSH rules. > So... Some clarifying questions. > > What version of Ceph are you running? > How many nodes do you have? > How many pools do you have, and what are their failure domains? > > Thank you, > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > Director - Information Technology > Perform Air International, Inc. > DHilsbos(a)PerformAir.com > www.PerformAir.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcel Kuiper [mailto:ceph@mknet.nl] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:52 AM > To: ceph-users(a)ceph.io > Subject: [ceph-users] osd out vs crush reweight > > Hi list, > > I ran a test with marking an osd out versus setting its crush weight to 0. > I compared to what osds pages were send. The crush map has 3 rooms. This > is what happened. > > On ceph osd out 111 (first room; this node has osds 108 - 116) pg's were > send to the following osds > > NR PG's OSD > 2 1 > 1 4 > 1 5 > 1 6 > 1 7 > 2 8 > 1 31 > 1 34 > 1 35 > 1 56 > 2 57 > 1 58 > 1 61 > 1 83 > 1 84 > 1 88 > 1 99 > 1 100 > 2 107 > 1 114 > 2 117 > 1 118 > 1 119 > 1 121 > > All PG's were send to osds on other nodes in the same room, except for 1 > PG on osd 114. I think this works as expected > > Now I marked the osd in and wait until all stabilized. Then I set the > crush weight to 0. ceph osd crush reweight osd.111 0. I thought this > lowers the crush weight of the node so even less chances that PG's end up > on an osd of the same node. However the result are > > NR PG's OSD > 1 61 > 1 83 > 1 86 > 3 108 > 4 109 > 5 110 > 2 112 > 5 113 > 7 114 > 5 115 > 2 116 > > except for 3 PG's all other PG's ended up on an osd belonging to the same > node :-O. Is this expected behaviour? Can someone explain?? This is on > nautilus 14.2.8. > > Thanks > > Marcel > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io >

2 6