1a) The Ceph documentation on Openstack integration make a big (and valuable) point that cloning images should be instantaneous/quick due to the copy-on-write functionality. See "Boot from volume" at bottom of
http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-openstack/. Here's the excerpt:
When Glance and Cinder are both using Ceph block devices, the image is a copy-on-write clone, so volume creation is very fast.
However, is this true *only* if we are using btrfs as the underlying file system for the OSDs? If so, then I don't think we can get this nice "quick" cloning, since CEPH documentation states all over the place that btrfs is not yet production ready.
Does this feature also depend on btrfs being used as underlying filesystem for OSDs?
2) If we have about 10 TB of data to transfer to CEPH (initial migration), would all 10 TB pass through the journals? If so, would it make sense to initially put the journals on each disk's separate partition (instead of an SSD), then once the 10 TB have been copied, to then change the Ceph configuration to now use SSDs for journaling instead of a partition on each disk? In this way, we don't "kill" (or significantly reduce) the SSDs life expectancy on day 1? (It's ok if the intiial migration takes longer if we're not using SSDs -- and I'm not sure that it will take more than twice as long anyways....)
3) Ceph documentation recommends multiple networks (front-side and back-side). I was wondering though which is "better": one large bonded interface of 6*1 GB/s = 6 GB/s or two or three interfaces, each of which would only be 2 or 3 GB/s (after bonding). My initial instincts is to just go for the nice fat 6 GB/s one, since I'm not worried about denial of service attacks (DOS) on my internal network and I figure this way I'll get excellent performance *most* of the time with some (minor?) risk that occassionally a client request may (or may not?) experience latency due to network traffic from back-end activities like replication? (My replication level will most likely be 2.)
4a) Regarding bonding: If I understood Ceph architecture correctly, any client request will automatically be routed to the individual OSDs that contain the a piece (a stripe) of the overall object that is being sought. So a single client request for an object could generate "n" requests to "n" OSDs. Since the OSDs (in a perfect world) will reside equally on all servers, then the normal hashing algorithm that Linux + LACP switches uses should balance these "n" requests accross "m" physical ethernet ports. So if I have 6 ethernet ports per server and say 6 servers, then in a perfect world, my "n" requests would use 6 ethernet ports. (In a real world, I imagine the hashing is not perfect and so maybe only 4 ethernet ports get used and the other two do nothing....). Is this understanding correct? If so, normal LACP hashing should suffice for my needs.
4b) A variation of the above question: if the 6 servers I have are NOT of equal size, such that the storage distributions are 24TB, 16TB, 12TB, 6TB, 4TB and 4TB (for a total of 68 TB hard disks across all servers) -- would it be reasonably to assume that CEPH would balance any object data roughly proportionally to the size of each server? (You can assume that the CRUSH setup is just using the default setup that comes with ceph-deploy, and that each server typically has 6 to 8 disks.) So a 1 TB vm, for example, would be split 24/68 on server 1; 16/68 on server 2; 12/68 on server 3; 4/68 on server 4; and 4/68 on servers 5 and 6?
--
Gautam Saxena
President & CEO
Integrated Analysis Inc.
Making Sense of Data.™
Biomarker Discovery Software | Bioinformatics Services | Data Warehouse Consulting | Data Migration Consulting
