2012/3/24 Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, ruslan usifov wrote: >> Sorry for my bad English. >> >> I mean that, if throw pacemaker we organize fault tolerant monitor >> (monitor that will work all time - even in fail case), we prevent > > The other key thing to keep in mind is that this is completely unnecessary > with Ceph. Just run 3 (or 5, or 7, or whatever) monitors, and individual > ceph-mon failures won't affect the availability. Ceph clients are smart > enough to find a non-failed monitor, and the cluster manages consistency > and so forth on it's own. > > The whole point is to _avoid_ kludgey proxy/failover solutions like > this... > > sage Yes, you right and I agree with you, but if "Ceph clients are smart enough to find a non-failed monitor" why they not smart to prevent connect to failed monitor until it fully restore, so now I have periodical delays when client try to connect to failed monitor, сertainly finally it find live monitor and all work fine, and with failover i try to solve problem of this delays -- 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
