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 ESMTPS id 150547A170 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:23:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0805D23AF6 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:23:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out-89.di.u-psud.fr (smtp-out-89.di.u-psud.fr [129.175.213.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 408AC23AEB for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out-1.di.u-psud.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.di.u-psud.fr (UPS-MTA-OUT) with ESMTP id 4HgBxj60Rgzcsl7 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:14:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmx1.di.u-psud.fr (pmx1.di.u-psud.fr [129.175.212.152]) by smtp-out-1.di.u-psud.fr (UPS-MTA-OUT) with ESMTP id 4HgBxj5qbFz1DYGT for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:14:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-in-1.di.u-psud.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (UPS-PMX) with SMTP id 4HgBxj5k8gz3f for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:14:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [129.175.212.70] (smtps.u-psud.fr [129.175.212.70]) (UPS-MTA) (Authenticated sender: alain.pean via 172.26.32.23) with ESMTPSA id 4HgBxj25cKz70 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:14:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <552796a1-e2af-d83b-975d-1a3fe393e8db@c2n.upsaclay.fr> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:14:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1 Reply-To: alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr Content-Language: fr To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <3765b095-5a5d-1e32-5e44-b11e2c2047ed@croit.io> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alain_p=c3=a9an?= Organization: C2N In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: smtps.u-psud.fr; auth=pass smtp.mailfrom=alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HgBxj25cKz70 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.917 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods NICE_REPLY_A -2.905 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 0.001 Informational: message has unparseable relay lines URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Fwd: [ceph-users] [IMPORTANT NOTICE] Potential data corruption in Pacific X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:23:41 -0000 Le 28/10/2021 à 18:19, Eneko Lacunza via pve-user a écrit : > Hi, > > Regarding this important issue reported for Ceph (just > cross-forwarding for those Ceph users not in ceph-user list): > > 1. Proxmox upgrade wiki page > https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Ceph_Octopus_to_Pacific marks as optional > disabling the conversion with "ceph config set osd > bluestore_fsck_quick_fix_on_mount false", and urges to convert ASAP. > It is now advised not to perform the conversion until a fix is released. > > 2. We have upgraded 2 clusters, but both have > bluestore_fsck_quick_fix_on_mount set to false. No command setting > that flag in our server's history, so I don't think we set that (I > wasn't the admin performin the upgrade, I'll be able to check with her > tomorrow) > > 3. Is it possible that for ceph 16.2.6 > bluestore_fsck_quick_fix_on_mount default value is false? > > I expect an emergency fix released soon but I guess checking won't > hurt anyone ;) Hi Eneko, Thanks for the warning. I saw the thread on ceph-users mailing list. Personnally, I upgraded my clusters from PVE 6.4 to 7.0, but not yet from Nautilus to Pacific. I'll wait a bit for this. Also, I have one cluster (the one in production) that is still with filestore OSDs. I was wondering, considering ' bluestore_fsck_quick_fix_on_mount", if it was mandatory to have bluestore OSDs on Pacific. Personnally, when I see that you have to manually destroy your OSDs one after the other, then recreate it as bluestore, I am a bit reluctant to do the upgrade... Let's see ! Alain -- Administrateur Système/Réseau C2N (ex LPN) Centre de Nanosciences et Nanotechnologies (UMR 9001) 10 Boulevard Thomas Gobert (ex Avenue de la Vauve), 91120 Palaiseau Tel : 01-70-27-06-88