From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A8163A6B for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:38:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5C4A11B335 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:38:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx.antreich.com (mx.antreich.com [173.249.42.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E7D391B32C for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:38:18 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=antreich.com; s=2018; t=1643221811; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xJUGRULcuZcnyzrP3+2KjarHy66PSZ9UW6L/rKsFOHM=; b=KRM+UxT+uZnlHwfZk3wdU9MSJp2t2Nh4nbyopn3RwJ09pDswcXMq+oa6Yn5dJCav/Ha7kg 04xOfQyFn6f/RgwT6GQKYaofasErapBd8hXF5yC1KmKJCApLqrqzWYbG0FDgDu022ApM/V l749dnSx2gyMzEQyrV62y5mLi6U9Hj3UTPLqaPSKKIssfdhekn0vCvsR9JIzLqsKzkH2Vk xIg3UKZcvQ3sIP+42vat5Vr0ESdRw0fjXGKmXuxCmLuKBn3Orm4ANU1e8srf6rGqsU+O2x 41ikqZ3qUWfDJK+SMJFzi5RuH4e3IhRMfhEjhOVfueHeYQJq762GZGYD7nwWrA== Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:30:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Alwin Antreich" Message-ID: <3dbb90bb8bfec2db7a08965c0301480f@antreich.com> To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" In-Reply-To: <20220126160734.2868618-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> References: <20220126160734.2868618-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.633 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [antreich.com, client.xxx] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] rbd: add support for erasure coded ec pools 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:38:49 -0000 Hello Aaron, nice to see EC pools are coming. ;) January 26, 2022 5:07 PM, "Aaron Lauterer" wrote= : > The first step is to allocate rbd images correctly. >=20 >=20The metadata objects still need to be stored in a replicated pool, bu= t > by providing the --data-pool parameter on image creation, we can place > the data objects on the erasure coded (EC) pool. AFAICR, there is an undocumented location for a ceph.conf, `/etc/pve/priv/ceph/.conf`. The config should have the following content. ``` [client.admin_ec] rbd default data pool =3D ceph_pool_ec ```` Then rbd will use the data pool. This should probably work for all storag= e operations. Newer ceph versions should also work with the config db option. ``` ceph config set client.xxx rbd_default_data_pool ceph_pool_ec ``` Cheers, Alwin