On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jevon Qiao <scaleqiao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sage and other Ceph experts, > > This is a greeting from Jevon, I'm from China and working in a company which > are using Ceph as the backend storage. At present, I'm evaluating the > following two options of using Ceph cluster to provide NAS service and I > need your advice from the perspective of stability and feasibility. > > Option 1: Directly use CephFS > Since Ceph as a unified storage can provide file system storage service via > cephfs, this looks an ideal solution for my case if CephFS is ready to be > used in production environment. However, based on the previous discussions > on CephFS, I see that there are still some issues like not ready for > supporting multiple metadata servers, lack of a fully functioning fsck and > so on. Also, I learn that CephFS has been evaluated by a large community of > users and there are production systems using it with a single MDS from the > official website of Ceph. So it is difficult for me to make the decision on > whether I should use it. > > Option 2: Ceph rbd + NFS server > This might be a common architecture used in current NAS storage. But the > problem is how to get rid of the single point failure on NFS server. What I > have right now is to use Corosync and Pacemaker(the typical HA solution in > Linux) to form a cluster. It seems that Sebastien Han has verified the > feasibility. Yep, these two options are the common choices people make. Exactly which one is better will depend a great deal on the kind of access you actually need to provide. If you want something that is supported, somewhere, by some combination of companies you can run to in case of disaster, go for NFS on top of RBD. Otherwise, you need to identify your actual workload and risk tolerance, and then perhaps run some tests in-house. If you're actually looking for a scalable file system, you should definitely look at CephFS — there are people successfully making real use out of it. If you just want to provide file access to general customers, probably NFS on RBD is a better choice in terms of stability, quantifiable performance characteristics, and expected methods of file access. -Greg _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |