On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Lorieri <lorieri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ? > It's not a problem. each file has an authority MDS. Yan, Zheng > 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |