Re: crush tunables : optimal : upgrade from firefly to hammer behaviour ?

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

 



On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently use crush tunables "optimal" value.
> 
> If I upgrade from firefly to hammer, does the optimal value will upgrade 
> to optimal values for hammer.

The tunables won't change on upgrade, and optimal on firefly != optimal on 
hammer.  In fact, 'optimal' on firefly is the same as 'firefly' (on 
firefly or hammer).

> So, does my clients (qemu-librbd) need to be also upgraded to hammer to 
> support new hammer features ?
> 
> 
> If yes,

Yes, but you won't need those features until you do upgrade mons and set 
tunables to 'hammer' or (hammer) 'optimal'.

s

 > 
> I think to:
> 
> 
> - change crush tunables to firefly
> - upgrade firefly cluster to hammer cluster
> - upgrade all my clients to hammer. (with qemu live migration, to have new qemu process with last hammer librbd)
> - change crush tunables to hammer



> 
> 
> Is it the right way ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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




[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