Hi, this is well known, years ago this was discussed on this list as well. One could argue that since it's not supported to change the EC parameters of a pool, you shouldn't change the profile. But the EC profile is only referenced during pool creation, so you can edit the profile and create *new* pools with it, this will show accordingly in the pool details output. But the more important part is the crush rule, of course. It defines where the chunks will be placed. So you should be good, but I'd still double test the PG placement (ceph pg ls-by-pool <pool>) and confirm the required resiliency as well by shutting down one or two datacenters. But please take this information with a grain of salt, it has been years since I last looked into this, we usually don't change EC profiles. I am just assuming that nothing has changed in this regard. Regards, Eugen Zitat von Niklas Hambüchen <mail@nh2.me>:
I made an EC 4+2 cluster with `crush-failure-domain=host`.
Later after adding more machines, I changed it from `host` to `datacenter`:
ceph osd erasure-code-profile set my_ec_profile_datacenter k=4 m=2 crush-failure-domain=datacenter crush-device-class=hdd ceph osd crush rule create-erasure rule_my_data_ec_datacenter my_ec_profile_datacenter ceph osd pool set my_data_ec crush_rule rule_my_data_ec_datacenter
This seems to have worked, and `ceph osd pool get my_data_ec crush_rule` outputs:
crush_rule: rule_my_data_ec_datacenter
But `ceph osd pool ls detail` still shows
pool 3 'my_data_ec' erasure profile my_ec_profile ...
with `my_ec_profile` instead of `my_ec_profile_datacenter`.
Is this a problem? Who wins, the profile or the crush-rule?
If it's not a problem, it is at least confusing; can I fix it somehow?
Thanks! Niklas _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io