It would be good to have others comment on the practicality of this design, as I don’t believe there is a benefit to having a single MON that is ‘better' than the other two. My reasoning comes from a limited understanding of the Paxos implementation
within Ceph, which suggests that a majority of MONs must be available at all times (i.e. - 2 of the 3), and that MON activities will be processed according to the speed of the slowest quorum member. If two of the MONs are running as VMs on OSD hosts, and
you have a write-heavy workload, I can foresee some interesting resource contention issues that might sometimes destabilize your entire cluster. YMMV.
- Paul
|
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com