(Sorry for top posting - on phone)
Related to some extent. Multimds will help when your small file issue is metadata bound, but I was actually thinking of data path random io latency. So begs the question as to what the survey meant by it...?
On 04/11/2014 4:34 pm, "Mariusz Gronczewski" <mariusz.gronczewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:36:07 +1100, Blair Bethwaite
<blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys
> will apply a certain amount of filtering on this...
>
> fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what
> I'd consider "icing" features - they're nice to have but not on the
> critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production
> setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and
> gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and
> positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here.
>
Those are related; if small file performance will be enough for one
MDS to handle high load with a lot of small files (typical case of
webserver), having multiple acive MDS will be less of a priority;
And if someone currently have OSD on bunch of relatively weak nodes,
again, having active-active setup with MDS will be more interesting to
him than someone that can just buy new fast machine for it.
--
Mariusz Gronczewski, Administrator
Efigence S. A.
ul. Wołoska 9a, 02-583 Warszawa
T: [+48] 22 380 13 13
F: [+48] 22 380 13 14
E: mariusz.gronczewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mariusz.gronczewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
