From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB431FF170 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B6741EEB2; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:13:11 +0100 (CET) From: Friedrich Weber To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:12:25 +0100 Message-Id: <20241119101225.35659-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.024 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] ceph: fix two broken lists X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" The two lists were missing the initial empty line and were consequently rendered as inline text, which made them hard to read. Signed-off-by: Friedrich Weber --- pveceph.adoc | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/pveceph.adoc b/pveceph.adoc index a828834..da39e7f 100644 --- a/pveceph.adoc +++ b/pveceph.adoc @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ You should test your setup and monitor health and performance continuously. .CPU Ceph services can be classified into two categories: + * Intensive CPU usage, benefiting from high CPU base frequencies and multiple cores. Members of that category are: ** Object Storage Daemon (OSD) services @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ performance potential of the underlying disks. If unsure, we recommend using three (physical) separate networks for high-performance setups: + * one very high bandwidth (25+ Gbps) network for Ceph (internal) cluster traffic. * one high bandwidth (10+ Gpbs) network for Ceph (public) traffic between the -- 2.39.5 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel