Of course, but it means that in case of failure you can no longer trust your data consistency and should recheck it against separately stored checksums or so. I`m leaving aside such fact that Ceph will not probably recover pool properly with replication number lower than 2 in many cases. So generally yes, one may use no replication but it does not make sense because for small amount of data there is very small savings and for larger data cost of recheck/reupload will be higher than cost of permanent additional storage. On 11/15/2013 02:27 AM, Nigel Williams wrote: > On 15/11/2013 8:57 AM, Dane Elwell wrote: >> [2] - I realise the dangers/stupidity of a replica size of 0, but some >> of the data we wish >> to store just isn’t /that/ important. > > We've been thinking of this too. The application is storing boot-images, > ISOs, local repository mirrors etc where recovery is easy with a slight > inconvenience if the data has to be re-fetched. This suggests a neat > additional feature for Ceph would be the ability to have metadata > attached to zero-replica objects that includes a URL where a copy could > be recovered/re-fetched. Then it could all happen auto-magically. > > We also have users trampolining data between systems in order to buffer > fast-data streams or handle data-surges. This can be zero-replica too. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |