On 05/28/2014 09:19 AM, Cedric Lemarchand wrote: > > Le 28/05/2014 16:15, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG a ?crit : >> Am 28.05.2014 16:13, schrieb Wido den Hollander: >>> On 05/28/2014 04:11 PM, VELARTIS Philipp D?rhammer wrote: >>>> Is someone using btrfs in production? >>>> I know people say it?s still not stable. But do we use so many features >>>> with ceph? And facebook uses it also in production. Would be a big speed >>>> gain. >>> As far as I know the main problem is still performance degradation over >>> time. On a SSD-only cluster this would be less of a problem since seek >>> times on SSDs aren't a really big problem, but on spinning disks they are. >>> >>> I haven't seen btrfs in production on any Ceph cluster I encountered. >> It heavily fragements over time. > I just would add that it is inherent to *all* COW based file system, and > not specifically to BTRFS ;-) I think the big issues is if the BTRFS defragmentation tools are made safe for when lots of snapshots are used. BTRFS tends to be very fast with Ceph on fresh filesystems, but the fragmentation, especially with small writes to RBD objects, can just kill it. > > Cheers > > C?dric > >> Also no kernel backports are available >> to stable kernels. So which one would you choose? >> >> Stefan >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >
 |