On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Giulio Fidente <gfidente@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/10/2014 11:51 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/11/2014 11:34, Sebastien Han wrote: >>> >>> Indeed, that’s what we discussed with Giulio, using HAProxy for the >>> Monitors is a bit overkill since the client is natively able to switch >>> between different monitor source. >>> >>> Loic, maybe you can elaborate a bit more on the usage of HAProxy for the >>> monitors? >> >> >> Hi Sebastien, >> >> I can't elaborate because I know nothing about HAProxy (well, close to >> nothing ;-). I'd like to learn more about how HA (via HAProxy or something >> else) can leverage Ceph in a meaningfull way thouhg, hence my interest for >> the topic. > > > Thanks all for helping. > > Loic explained requests for the non-leader monitors go to the monitor anyway > in which case I understand it makes more sense to avoid the complication of > balancing the monitors. Well, that's not quite right — *modification* requests get routed through the leader; read-only operations are handled by the non-leader monitors. But I can't imagine how HAProxy would or could fit into that communications path, and the clients do switch independently between monitors as required (and there are a few different methods to approximate load-balancing in the system, although nothing too serious). -Greg -- 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
