Hi, if I have a situation when each node in a cluster writes their own files in cephfs, is it safe to use multiple MDS ? I mean, is the problem using multiple MDS related to nodes writing same files ? thanks, -lorieri On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Shain Miley <smiley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > +1 for fsck and snapshots, being able to have snapshot backups and protect > against accidental deletion, etc is something we are really looking forward > to. > > Thanks, > > Shain > > > > On 11/04/2014 04:02 AM, 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... >> >> sage >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > -- > Shain Miley | Manager of Systems and Infrastructure, Digital Media | > smiley@xxxxxxx | 202.513.3649 > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |