On 30 June 2015 at 16:03, Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:55 AM, James (Fei) Liu-SSI > <james.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Haomai, >> Thanks for moving the idea forward. Regarding to the compression. However, if we do compression on the client level, it is not global. And the compression was only applied to the local client, am I right? I think there is pros and cons in two solutions and we can get into details more for each solution. > > Yes, I think a lot myself about compression with Ceph. At firstly, we > could easily use objectstore backend to implement compress like > filestore with zfs/btrfs and keyvaluestore with leveldb/rocksdb etc. > The advantages are we can enjoy it now. The cons are we may lose too > much for benefit of compression especially for performance. If you were going to compress at the OSD I imagine the main performance concern would be about adding to write latency? That might be mitigated by only compressing the actual datastore and not the journal? I like the idea of having a compress option implemented in e.g. librbd and rgw, both of these cases involve scale-out clients and so concerns of performance overhead can be largely brushed aside (e.g., most OpenStack hypervisors seem to have plenty of free CPU). -- Cheers, ~Blairo -- 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
