similar to: dovecot + cephfs - sdbox vs mdbox

Thanks Jack. That's good to know. It is definitely something to consider. In a distributed storage scenario we might build a dedicated pool for that and tune the pool as more capacity or performance is needed. Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jack <ceph at jack.fr.eu.org> wrote:

Hello Jack, yes, I imagine I'll have to do some work on tuning the block size on cephfs. Thanks for the advise. I knew that using mdbox, messages are not removed but I though that was true in sdbox too. Thanks again. We'll soon do benchmarks of sdbox vs mdbox over cephfs with bluestore backend. We'll have to do some some work on how to simulate user traffic, for writes and readings.

Hi, some time back we had similar discussions when we, as an email provider, discussed to move away from traditional NAS/NFS storage to Ceph. The problem with POSIX file systems and dovecot is that e.g. with mdbox only around ~20% of the IO operations are READ/WRITE, the rest are metadata IOs. You will not change this with using CephFS since it will basically behave the same way as e.g. NFS. We

Got 2.2.34 running using debian strech image + strech-backports repos! Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Webert de Souza Lima <webert.boss at gmail.com > wrote: > Oh thank you Cedric, I hadn't check that. So 2.2.35 is unstable, huh? > I'll deploy 2.2.34 instead. > >

Hi, did you check in unstable ? https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dovecot 2018-04-26 16:43 GMT-04:00 Webert de Souza Lima <webert.boss at gmail.com>: > hmm I think I should use stretch instead of jessie, OR I should use a > stretch-backport repos, right? > > > Regards, > > Webert Lima > DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia > *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* > *IRC NICK -

31.07.2024 07:55, Anoop C S via samba wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Building current samba on debian bullseye with >> >> ?? ./configure --enable-cephfs >> >> results in the following output: >> >> Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h????????????? : yes >> Checking for

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > Hi! > > Building current samba on debian bullseye with > > ?? ./configure --enable-cephfs > > results in the following output: > > Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h????????????? : yes > Checking for library cephfs???????????????????????? : yes > Checking for ceph_statx in

Hey Aki Tuomi, how are you doing? I have tried many ways for getting 2.2.35 pre-built installed via 'apt-get install' in Debian Jessie and Stretch using the official repos. The reason I prefer to install pre-built instead of compiling it is because the I run it on dockers, so it's a lot easier and automated to just apt-get install it. I was using 2.2.31 devel in Debian Jessie, I

Hi! Building current samba on debian bullseye with ./configure --enable-cephfs results in the following output: Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h : yes Checking for library cephfs : yes Checking for ceph_statx in cephfs : ok Checking for ceph_openat in cephfs : not found Ceph support disabled due to

Hi, I can't figure how to install latest stable dovecot version 2.2.35 in Debian Jessie If I follow this guide <https://repo.dovecot.org/>, it ends up installing 2.3 If I follow this guide <https://wiki.dovecot.org/PrebuiltBinaries#preview>, it ends up installing either 2.2.13 if I use "stable" or 2.2.36 alpha if I use "jessie" I see that 2.2.35 seems to be

Hi list, we have migrated a single node Samba server from Ubuntu Trusty to a 3-node CTDB Cluster on Debian Bullseye with Sernet packages. Storage is CephFS. We are running Samba in Standalone Mode with LDAP Backend. Samba Version: sernet-samba 99:4.18.2-2debian11 I don't know if it is relevant here's how we have mounted CephFS on the samba nodes: (fstab):/samba /srv/samba ceph

On Wed, 2024-07-31 at 08:36 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > 31.07.2024 07:55, Anoop C S via samba wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Building current samba on debian bullseye with > > > > > > ??? ./configure --enable-cephfs > > > > > > results in

Hi, I'm testing out ceph_vms vs a cephfs mount with a cifs export. I currently have 3 active ceph mds servers to maximise throughput and when I have configured a cephfs mount with a cifs export, I'm getting a reasonable benchmark results. However, when I tried some benchmarking with the ceph_vms module, I only got a 3rd of the comparable write throughput. I'm just wondering if

Just found my issue. After I removed the cephfs mounts it worked! I will debug ceph. I assumed because I could touch files on mounted cephfs it was working. Now virsh list works! thanks jerry Lars Kellogg-Stedman > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jerry Buburuz wrote: >> Recently both virsh stopped talking to the libvirtd. Both stopped within >> a >> few days of

On 2016-01-08 at 09:31 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:26:24PM +0100, Dirk Laurenz wrote: > > Hello List, > > > > as anyone tried to install samba with/ontop on a ceph cluster? > > Try compiling and setting up with vfs_ceph. Correct, that's basically it. > Needs some more work, but should work. Some posix features are not quite there

Hi ceph-ers, The email below was posted on the ceph mailinglist yesterday by Wido den Hollander. I guess this could be interesting for user here as well. MJ -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ceph-users] librmb: Mail storage on RADOS with Dovecot Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:40:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Wido den Hollander <wido at 42on.com> To: ceph-users at ceph.com Hi, A tracker

Hello Using two file server with samba 4.12.6 running as a CTDB cluster and trying to share a specific path on a cephfs. After loading the config the ctdb log shows the following error: ctdb-eventd[248]: 50.samba: ERROR: samba directory "/plm" not available Here is my samba configuration: [global] clustering = Yes netbios name = FSCLUSTER realm = INT.EXAMPLE.COM registry

Hello Florent, How did you proceed with the upgrade? Did you follow the recommended steps guide to upgrade ceph? (mons first, then OSDs, then MDS) Did you interrupt dovecot before upgrading the MDS specially? Did you remount the filesystem? Did you upgrade the ceph client too? Give people the complete scene and someone might be able to help you. Ask on ceph-users list too. Regards, Webert

Hi, I came across the 'CTDB_CAPABILITY_LMASTER=no' and 'CTDB_CAPABILITY_RECMASTER=no' options in my quest to salvage a rather poorly performing CTDB cluster over Ceph(fs). Unfortunately, the docs provide not enough information for a clustering noop like myself. Would there be any benefit to disabling those options for a branch office node on a high-latency WAN connection?

On 5/11/23 15:35, Thomas Hukkelberg via samba wrote: > We have exact same problem but never really found the underlying > issue and whether it's a cephfs bug, a samba bug or only related to > vfs_fruit. it's a known subtle Ceph issue I'm afraid: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50719 If the issue still exists with a newer Ceph version then mentioned in the bugreport, please