We do not use multisite configuration. However is it advisable to create a new pool also for index-pool and data-extra-pool maybe? Rok On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 2:12 PM Daniel Parkes <dparkes@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
Yes, we have it in the docs, https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/radosgw/placement/#placement-targets :
[image: image.png]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 2:06 PM Eugen Block via ceph-users < ceph-users@ceph.io> wrote:
It didn't work in my tests without a realm, so I don't believe grok :-D But I'd love to be proven wrong.
Zitat von Rok Jaklič <rjaklic@gmail.com>:
There is:
[root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin realm list { "default_info": "", "realms": [] } [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin realm get-default No default realm is set [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin period list { "periods": [] } [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin zonegroup list { "default_info": "b1e0d55c-f7cb-4e73-b1cb-6cffa1fd6578", "zonegroups": [ "default" ] } [root@ctplmon1 ~]# radosgw-admin zone list { "default_info": "c2c70444-7a41-4acd-a0d0-9f87d324ec72", "zones": [ "default" ] }
Since there is no realm set, I can skip radosgw-admin period update --commit entirely if grok is to be believed?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 11:54 AM Eugen Block via ceph-users < ceph-users@ceph.io> wrote:
From my understanding the new placement will not be available if the period can't be updated. Your zonegroup/zone configuration seems off compared to the test cluster. Is there a default zonegroup/zone?
Zitat von Rok Jaklič via ceph-users <ceph-users@ceph.io>:
So I've created a little plan on how to create a new profile and assign new S3 users to EC 8+3 pool. Idea is that all new s3 users are using a new pool, and old ones pool with EC 3+2 and data is intact.
--- ceph osd erasure-code-profile set ec-83-profile k=8 m=3 crush-failure-domain=host ceph osd pool create rgw.buckets.ec-83.data 256 erasure ec-83-profile ceph osd pool application enable rgw.buckets.ec-83.data rgw
radosgw-admin zonegroup placement add --placement-id=ec-83-placement
radosgw-admin zone placement add \ --placement-id ec-83-placement \ --data-pool rgw.buckets.ec-83.data \ --index-pool default.rgw.buckets.index \ --data-extra-pool default.rgw.buckets.non-ec \ --placement-index-type 0
radosgw-admin period update --commit
# restart rgw systemctl restart ceph-radosgw.target # verify the new placement radosgw-admin zone get | grep -A 20 "ec-83-placement"
# for new s3 users, set the default placement radosgw-admin user create --uid=<user> --tenant=<tenant> --placement-id=ec-83-placement ---
It seems to work on "test cluster", however I get an error on:
[root@a8-mon1 ~]# radosgw-admin period update --commit cannot commit period: period does not have a master zone of a master zonegroup failed to commit period: (22) Invalid argument
Do I actually need to run this command or is "rgw restart" enough?
Any comments appriciated.
Rok
On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 12:42 PM Rok Jaklič via ceph-users < ceph-users@ceph.io> wrote:
Hi,
we expanded the cluster to 12 nodes with 28 osds, but we are still running on EC 3+2, since we started cluster with 6 nodes. We would like to change it to EC 6+3 or even EC 8+3? Is this reasonable or will 8+3 take too much CPU/network capacities? Should I use isa/isa-l instead of jerasure?
Can anyone share experience with 8+3?
Kind regards, Rok _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
