From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: v0.75 released Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:58:16 +1300 Message-ID: <52DA2608.8080202@catalyst.net.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org Sender: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org To: Alexandre Oliva , Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ceph-users-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org On 18/01/14 19:50, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 15, 2014, Sage Weil wrote: > >> v0.75 291 files changed, 82713 insertions(+), 33495 deletions(-) > >> Upgrading >> ~~~~~~~~~ > > I suggest adding: > > * All (replicated?) pools will likely fail scrubbing because the > per-pool dirty object counts, introduced in 0.75, won't match. This > inconsistency is cleared by a pg repair; unfortunately this is about > as expensive as a a deep-scrub, and it's not automatically scheduled > or retried, like scrubs and deep-scrubs. > > I suppose after the dirty counts are brought to sync, the next scrub > won't find inconsistent counts again, but I haven't got to that point > yet. > > What surprised me was the huge number of objects marked as dirty! It > was at least 14k out of 70k objects in each data pool, and even more in > metadata pools, but it's not like I have messed with this many objects > recently. Could something be amiss there? > And stat mis-matches too I think are going to require folk to run repairs. Regards Mark