On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Christian Brunner wrote: >> We are having quite some problems with the underlying filesystem for >> the cosd's and I would like to hear about other experiences. Here is >> what we have gone through so far: >> >> btrfs with 2.6.38: >> >> - good performance >> - frequently hitting of various BUG_ON conditions >> >> btrfs with 2.6.39: >> >> - big performance problems after a few days uptime >> - occasionally hitting BUG_ON conditions >> >> btrfs with 3.0: >> >> - big performance problems after a few days uptime >> - occasionally hitting a deadlock in the btrfs filesystem (cosd is in D-state) > > You might try 3.0 + the latest stuff Chris just sent to Linus (at least > for the D-state problem). I'm eager to see whether the latencytop info > you sent is helpful for the rest. > > FWIW we're running 2.6.38+ at the moment. We get some warnings with the > orphan code (fixed in .39), but it's otherwise been reasonably stable. I thought that ext3/4 and btrfs are the only recommended underlying filesystem for ceph. I didnt know we can use xfs. With Glusterfs, theoretically, we can use any filesystem with extended attributes support as backend filesystem. Is that the same case with ceph too? Though it may not be optimal, theoretically can i use a "filesystem X" with extended attributes support for ceph? thanks, Mugunthan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
