Hi Warren, On 20 May 2015 at 23:23, Wang, Warren <Warren_Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We¹ve contemplated doing something like that, but we also realized that > it would result in manual work in Ceph everytime we lose a drive or > server, > and a pretty bad experience for the customer when we have to do > maintenance. Yeah I guess you have to delete and recreate the pool, but is that really so bad? > We also kicked around the idea of leveraging the notion of a Hadoop rack > to define a set of instances which are Cinder volume backed, and the rest > be ephemeral drives (not Ceph backed ephemeral). Using 100% ephemeral > isn¹t out of the question either, but we have seen a few instances where > all the instances in a region were quickly terminated. What's the implication here - the HDFS instances were terminated and that would have caused Hadoop data-loss had they been ephemeral? -- Cheers, ~Blairo _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |