On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: > > > On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the > > > > CephFS > > > > survey results looked like. > > > > > > Thanks Sage, that was me! > > > > > > > Here's the link: > > > > > > > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ > > > > > > > > In short, people want > > > > > > > > fsck > > > > multimds > > > > snapshots > > > > quotas > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I > > think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were > > originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each > > person or something). > > > > fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few > > actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch > > shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to > > the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting > > snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's > > my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard > > usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. > > > > We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on > > peoples' experiences with giant so far... > > > > Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to > be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. > > Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and > for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand > we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so > important there. Important clarification: "multimds" == multiple *active* MDS's. "single mds" means 1 active MDS and N standy's. One perfectly valid strategy, for example, is to run a ceph-mds on *every* node and let the mon pick whichever one is active. (That works as long as you have sufficient memory on all nodes.) sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |