I find it strange to be arguing for worse is better, but On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Varada Kari (System Engineer) <varadaraja.kari@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes for internal data movement across pools. I am not too particular > about using the > current implemetation, if tiering V2 solves this better, will be > interested to use it. > The current problem is transferring object/bucket life cycles policies > to rados for moving the data around. The problem is simplified when RGW moves the data around within as well as across clusters. As you note below... > I am not sure, if this needs a different policy engine at RGW layer, > to transcode these policies into tiering ops to move the data to a > different pool. > And we have to manage/indicate this object is moved to a different > pool and we have to bring it back or do a proxy read. > I am thinking mostly from the object life cycle management from RGW. > You want to support this anyway. >> >> Especially since you're discussing moving data across clusters, and >> RGW is already maintaining a number of indexes and things (eg, head >> objects), I think it's probably best to have RGW maintain metadata >> about the "real" location of uploaded objects. >> -Greg >> > As one more policy on the object, we can have archiving this object to > a different cluster. Here don't want to overload rados, but use RGW > cloud sync or multisite to sync this data to a different cluster. > When we starting integrating bucket/object policies to the life cycle > management and tiering, interesting to explore on how long i want to > it in the same pool or different pool or a different cluster. > Varada >>> -- Matt Benjamin Red Hat, Inc. 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage tel. 734-821-5101 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- 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
