2013/8/19 Wolfgang Hennerbichler <wolfgang.hennerbichler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 08/19/2013 12:01 PM, Schmitt, Christian wrote: >>> yes. depends on 'everything', but it's possible (though not recommended) >>> to run mon, mds, and osd's on the same host, and even do virtualisation. >> >> Currently we don't want to virtualise on this machine since the >> machine is really small, as said we focus on small to midsize >> businesses. Most of the time they even need a tower server due to the >> lack of a correct rack. ;/ > > whoa :) Yep that's awful. >>>> Our Application, Ceph's object storage and a database? >>> >>> what is 'a database'? >> >> We run Postgresql or MariaDB (without/with Galera depending on the cluster size) > > You wouldn't want to put the data of postgres or mariadb on cephfs. I > would run the native versions directly on the servers and use > mysql-multi-master circular replication. I don't know about similar > features of postgres. No i don't want to put a MariaDB Cluster on CephFS we want to put PDFs in CephFS or Ceph's Object Storage and hold a key or path in the database, also other things like user management will belong to the database >>> shared nothing is possible with ceph, but in the end this really depends >>> on your application. >> >> hm, when disk fails we already doing some backup on a dell powervault >> rd1000, so i don't think thats a problem and also we would run ceph on >> a Dell PERC Raid Controller with RAID1 enabled on the data disk. > > this is open to discussion, and really depends on your use case. Yeah we definitely know that it isn't good to use Ceph on a single node, but i think it's easier to design the application that it will depends on ceph. it wouldn't be easy to manage to have a single node without ceph and more than 1 node with ceph. >>>> Currently we make an archiving software for small customers and we want >>>> to move things on the file system on a object storage. >>> >>> you mean from the filesystem to an object storage? >> >> yes, currently everything is on the filesystem and this is really >> horrible, thousands of pdfs just on the filesystem. we can't scale up >> that easily with this setup. > > Got it. > >> Currently we run on Microsoft Servers, but we plan to rewrite our >> whole codebase with scaling in mind, from 1 to X Servers. So 1, 3, 5, >> 7, 9, ... X²-1 should be possible. > > cool. > >>>> Currently we only >>>> have customers that needs 1 machine or 3 machines. But everything should >>>> work as fine on more. >>> >>> it would with ceph. probably :) >> >> That's nice to hear. I was really scared that we don't find a solution >> that can run on 1 system and scale up to even more. We first looked at >> HDFS but this isn't lightweight. > > not only that, HDFS also has a single point of failure. > >> And the overhead of Metadata etc. >> just isn't that cool. > > :) Yeah that's why I came to Ceph. I think that's probably the way we want to go. Really thank you for your help. It's good to know that I have a solution for the things that are badly designed on our current solution. > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |