From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6091C433DB for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936FE64F2A for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230206AbhCRLiS (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 07:38:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45614 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229974AbhCRLhs (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 07:37:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F626C06174A for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id kr3-20020a17090b4903b02900c096fc01deso2964715pjb.4 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xa/OTIx3Y/cWLbBdo6jLDXf/uPBTJqYPXhW7/qoi9FY=; b=CCJMaQMrC+KFRpJwgXxo14ApvzFPlxQRbCnNFahAMM7LS+s/7AaoSns7odfTD32ggR PQK0CwgvzuEolqqNthw9A4fpC86pSRuWV/PJpWvaxFGAui5DHzICMwf99pUHKbH88kGJ skUsXO29dVURWkUHysW/qGaHroF9OpNxHMZ2Am4kVH2s+7CIAzu1BTR0w5PxJIC6/zlb rPdCTcSZ3xSPst2bqhmiJXHZBN/T5DlJctRBN/Q0QT1XO0AzWkHA8R+SJE/JbCyBnOSz 7Ghu3udfwcIbAIc/nmpltD0E/iXiNnn7AtI0mJac2+7/2+RzbEb/1HCpJ3T/hKM3Q37z I/1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xa/OTIx3Y/cWLbBdo6jLDXf/uPBTJqYPXhW7/qoi9FY=; b=aIkOvajaDdpdJtb/0MRY37GISEtH/byYB5BXJKLJGMi7qu07mNNqUA24+ZqmH2HoXU NC8OsliszrBvm/a74pMCqIeiFjipRwp2I0NHKwV/hv5LTL8sZcPiosMBrMBQ/w2xjjeK QolvJUovsfeaOiZP0TciFUutKVIhIE7vBwCFKu+gbY3UHj276mJ27YwpD79C0+hVGyTs bnFyOoGHjsx/GBzI1bnusGgIx6ccV+wADvcrmLi781UlhDlBXM41JYm0O/GSkk1iAyJN bLw6lxM6rIlE5vj9dLc9xo/TSlooyp3BFoREOMfYCWpfpzW9mnuUFLlZFTs6QDJ0WNbT vGfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/oAq1NYo2hvZdKQFW81Yi+G3fZvejFyo0hETmSWOOTFbJsNn9 /XL/VMNEQauXlbV3lpZG8IpUNag3dY40WlHJOCpzlFawTjajuw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5sBwDmHPzCTJuHp9EOEMpRf5UYD+tEyeW+g9UqIxYzsHqBAoKYa/mQYm/jVknLJSs7Fl8MBYFjTmQ6Ong4bE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bb91:b029:e6:bc94:4899 with SMTP id m17-20020a170902bb91b02900e6bc944899mr9093980pls.25.1616067467847; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:37:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: WeiGuo Ren Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 19:37:35 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: rgw: Is rgw_sync_lease_period=120s set small? To: Ceph Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org I have an osd ceph cluster, rgw instance often appears to be renewed and not locked WeiGuo Ren =E4=BA=8E2021=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8818=E6= =97=A5=E5=91=A8=E5=9B=9B =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=887:35=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > In an rgw multi-site production environment, how many rgw instances > will be started in a single zone? According to my test, multiple rgw > instances will compete for the datalog leaselock, and it is very > likely that the leaselock will not be renewed. Is the default > rgw_sync_lease_period=3D120s a bit small?