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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 4580F75143 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 0D39B1D9B4 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (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 UTF8SMTPS id 9DF7F1D9A8 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:31:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 881D2465D2 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:23:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , aderumier@odiso.com, pve-devel References: <2422013ee08dd4e3abb04ba5360a084beddf5183.camel@odiso.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <2422013ee08dd4e3abb04ba5360a084beddf5183.camel@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.350 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.603 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] ceph create pool with min_size=1 not possible anymore with last gui wizard 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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 13:31:53 -0000 On 6/4/21 04:47, aderumier@odiso.com wrote: > Hi, > Hi, > I was doing a training week with students, > > and I see that the new ceph wizard to create pool don't allow to set > min_size=1 anymore. > > It's currently displaying a warning "min_size <= size/2 can lead to > data loss, incomplete PGs or unfound objects", > > that's ok , but It's also blocking the validation button. > yes, in our experience, setting min_size to 1 is always a bad idea and most likely not what you want what is possible though is to either create the pool on the cli, or changing the min_size after creation to 1 (this is not blocked) > > > Some users with small cluster/budgets want to do only size=2, > > so with min_size=2, the cluster will go read only in case of any osd > down. > > It could be great to allow at least min_size=1 when size=2 is used. > "great" but very dangerous > > also, > Other setup like size=4, min_size=2, also display the warning, but > allow to validate the form. > > I'm not sure this warning is correct in this case , as since octopus, > min_size > is auto compute when pool is created, and a simple > > ceph osd pool create mypool 128 --size=4 , create a pool with > min_size=2 by default. > > the rationale behind this decision was (i think) because if you have exactly 50% min_size of size (e.g. 4/2) you can get inconsistent pgs, with no quorum as to which pg is correct? (though don't quote me on that) so i think its always better to have > 50% min_size of size