doc: for EC we recommend K+1

Update the doc to match the reality in the code. I don't know where
the recommendation to have min_size = k+2 came from, but for awhile
now we've defaulted to K+1. See PR #8008.

Signed-off-by: Dan van der Ster <dan.vanderster@clyso.com>
(cherry picked from commit 68faf88e6babf7e5c2cce2b4d9b80a159b38c30d)

diff --git a/doc/rados/operations/erasure-code.rst b/doc/rados/operations/erasure-code.rst
index ccb2099394c569f7f4ea691edcb8673dc28f151c..e2bd3c2966252b2507009b3ef2799ab002e3f2de 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/rados/operations/erasure-code.rst
+++ b/doc/rados/operations/erasure-code.rst
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ mode. As a result, however, pools with lost OSDs but without complete data loss
 unable to recover and go active without manual intervention to temporarily change
 the ``min_size`` setting.
 
-We recommend that ``min_size`` be ``K+2`` or greater to prevent loss of writes and
+We recommend that ``min_size`` be ``K+1`` or greater to prevent loss of writes and
 loss of data.