2012/1/7 Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub <yehudasa@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM, huang jun <hjwsm1989@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I have an idea, why not use radosgw+fs to balance the workload? >> but i can not successfully deploy it. >> I really want to know whether radosgw+fs works? >> If so, how about the performance between radosgw+fs and radosgw+rados? >> > > At this point radosgw cannot use arbitrary file system as a backend. > This requires a restructuring of the code, though we do have that in > mind. The current 'fs' backend for radosgw is obsolete and wouldn't > work anyway as the internal interfaces evolved quite a bit since it > had been written, mainly to take advantage of rados capabilities that > a regular filesystem cannot provide. > The plan is to create a new devel library (similar to librados and > librbd) that will provide a filesystem-like api. Having radosgw using > this library (instead of the current internal access library) will > help enabling a fs backend. But, as I said, there's still some work > ahead of us. > > Yehuda hi, thanks for you reply so the workload balance will be a hidden trouble using radosgw?do you have any ideas to promote this? and if we put an object in atmotic way: put it to a temp object and after the write finished , send a clone op, does this have any effect on IO thourghput? -- huangjun ChuYunHanZhi WuHan Network Storage System Ltd WuHan GuangGu Road -- 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
