New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: Clarify the relationship of min_size to EC pool recovery #14419

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 12, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@badone
Contributor

badone commented Apr 10, 2017

Signed-off-by: Brad Hubbard bhubbard@redhat.com

docs: Clarify the relationship of min_size to EC pool recovery
Signed-off-by: Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@redhat.com>

@badone badone requested a review from liewegas Apr 10, 2017

@badone

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

badone commented Apr 10, 2017

@liewegas 9549943 broke this so I'm trying to correct that specifically for the EC case. Would you mind taking a look at this when you get a chance?

@badone

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

badone commented Apr 10, 2017

Test this please

@liewegas

This comment has been minimized.

Member

liewegas commented Apr 10, 2017

Hmm, I was under the impression that we fixed this last year (changing min_size wasn't needed for recovery to progress)?

@badone

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

badone commented Apr 10, 2017

Test this please

@liewegas doesn't you comment in #12971 indicate min_size is still relevant for EC pools?

@liewegas

I see now!

@liewegas liewegas merged commit b841ab2 into ceph:master Apr 12, 2017

3 checks passed

Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodifed Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
default Build finished.
Details

@badone badone deleted the badone:wip-doc-pg-states-min_size branch Apr 12, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment