Currently, we don't specify which k/m values we support. We need to explicitly test and document the following values which are the same used by RHGS. 1. 8+3 2. 8+4 3. 4+2 This will require upstream tests to be added too. Support values should be documented at: https://access.redhat.com/articles/1548993
These values also need to be exposed on RHScon.
From the point of view of data integrity we explicitly test the following combinations for SHEC plugin: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L66 LRC plugin: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L94 ISA plugin: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L113 jerasure plugin: with cauchy and cauchy_good techniques : https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L220 with reed_sol_van technique: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L243 From the point of view of how rados handles erasure coded pools we have: LRC plugin with k=4,m=2,l=3 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/blob/master/suites/rados/thrash-erasure-code-big/workloads/ec-rados-plugin%3Dlrc-k%3D4-m%3D2-l%3D3.yaml ISA plugin with k=2,m=1 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/blob/master/suites/rados/thrash-erasure-code-isa/workloads/ec-rados-plugin%3Disa-k%3D2-m%3D1.yaml SHEC plugin with k=4,m=3,c=2 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/blob/master/suites/rados/thrash-erasure-code-shec/workloads/ec-rados-plugin%3Dshec-k%3D4-m%3D3-c%3D2.yaml jerasure plugin with k=2, m=1 and k=3, m=1 From the point of view of upgrades we are using the jerasure plugin with k=2, m=1 and scenarios verifying an erasure coded pool behaves during upgrades from: hammer to kraken : https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/tree/master/suites/upgrade/hammer-x jewel to kraken : https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/tree/master/suites/upgrade/jewel-x
Here is where 8+3 and 8+4 and 4+2 data integrity are tested (happens on every pull request) submitted for review. > 1. 8+3 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L121 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L251 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L228 > 2. 8+4 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L122 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L252 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L229 > 3. 4+2 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L117 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L246 https://github.com/ceph/ceph-erasure-code-corpus/blob/master/v0.92-988/non-regression.sh#L223
Perfect! Ken: feels like we can turn this into a doc task. I am going to update the supported config page but we should also include the support K/M values explicitly in the erasure code section of our docs.
Can we add in 2+2 as well?
@Neil added 2+2 tests upstream, scheduled for backport to jewel.
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_ceph_storage/2/html/storage_strategies_guide/erasure_code_pools#erasure_code_profiles Does not mention anything about supported values. Re-adding the accidentally cleared needinfo from Neil from comment #6
Closing this bug as the documentation has been published with the release