Thanks for the info. I was erring to less pools but using software that does not share pools very well seem to put a spanner in the works at the time. I think we will work on making it more RBD friendly Thanks Pieter On 12 May 2014, at 19:53, McNamara, Bradley <Bradley.McNamara at seattle.gov> wrote: > The formula was designed to be used on a per-pool basis. Having said that, though, when looking at the number of PG?s from a system-wide perspective, one does not want too many total PG?s. So, it?s a balancing act, and it has been suggested that it?s better to have slightly more PG?s than you need, but not too many. > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces at lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Koorts > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:21 AM > To: ceph-users at ceph.com > Subject: CEPH placement groups and pool sizes > > Hi, > > Been doing some reading on the CEPH documentation and just wanted to clarify if anyone knows the (approximate) correct PG's for CEPH. > > What I mean is lets say I have created one pool with 4096 placement groups. > Now instead of one pool I want two so if I were to create 2 pools instead would it be still 4096 placement groups per pool or would I divide it between the pools (e.g. 2048 pg per pool) > > On a side note, per pool is that a recommended maximum of data before turning over to a new pool? > > Regards > > Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140512/941a606c/attachment.htm>
 |