Best practice K/M-parameters EC pool

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 15/08/2014 13:24, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 08/15/2014 12:23 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> On 15/08/2014 11:54, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> With EC pools in Ceph you are free to choose any K and M parameters you
>>> like. The documentation explains what K and M do, so far so good.
>>>
>>> Now, there are certain combinations of K and M that appear to have more
>>> or less the same result. Do any of these combinations have pro's and
>>> con's that I should consider and/or are there best practices for
>>> choosing the right K/M-parameters?
>>>
> 
> Loic might have a better anwser, but I think that the more segments (K) you have, the heavier recovery. You have to contact more OSDs to reconstruct the whole object so that involves more disks doing seeks.
> 
> I heard sombody from Fujitsu say that he thought 8/3 was best for most situations. That wasn't with Ceph though, but with a different system which implemented Erasure Coding.
> 
>>> For instance, if I choose K = 3 and M = 2, then pg's in this pool will
>>> use 5 OSD's and sustain the loss of 2 OSD's. There is 40% overhead in
>>> this configuration.
>>>
>>> Now, if I were to choose K = 6 and M = 4, I would end up with pg's that
>>> use 10 OSD's and sustain the loss of 4 OSD's, which is statistically not
>>> so much different from the first configuration. Also there is the same
>>> 40% overhead.
>>
>> Although I don't have numbers in mind, I think the odds of loosing two OSD simultaneously are a lot smaller than the odds of loosing four OSD simultaneously. Or am I misunderstanding you when you write "statistically not so much different from the first configuration" ?
>>
> 
> Loosing two smaller then loosing four? Is that correct or did you mean it the other way around?


Right, sorry for the confusion, I meant the other way around :-)

> 
> I'd say that loosing four OSDs simultaneously is less likely to happen then two simultaneously.
> 
>> Cheers
>>
>>> One rather obvious difference between the two configurations is that the
>>> latter requires a cluster with at least 10 OSD's to make sense. But
>>> let's say we have such a cluster, which of the two configurations would
>>> be recommended, and why?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Erik.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Lo?c Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140815/63227c20/attachment.pgp>


[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux