Yes, given the architectural design limitations of ZFS, there will indeed always be performance consequences for using it in an environment its creators never envisioned, like Ceph. But ZFS offers many advanced features not found on other filesystems, and for production environments that depend on those features, it’s very reasonable to still want them in an environment that happens to be backed Keep in mind also that FreeBSD and Solaris installers both create ZFS filesystems (Solaris by default/only option, FreeBSD I’m not sure about, it may be default in the most recent release), so this is not just a question about ZFS on Linux. ZFS is a *very* popular filesystem in wide usage and is the *only* cross-platform filesystem to offer the features it does. So, until there’s another broadly-supported, ceph-aware, production-quality filesystem that offers feature parity with it, the question of how to get the best (or, if you prefer, least worst) ZFS-on-ceph performance is worth asking. In light of that, is it possible to do any better than just writing it off as a lost cause? This is work we’re absolutely willing to do, we just don’t feel we have a good understanding of all the moving parts involved, and how to measure and tune them all. (And, most importantly, how to measure the impact of the tuning.) Thanks! On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Tyler Bishop <tyler.bishop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Due to the nature of distributed storage and a filesystem built to distribute itself across sequential devices.. you're going to always have poor performance. > > Are you unable to use XFS inside the vm? > > > If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |