On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Jan Schermer <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think there's any point in MMAP-ing a virtual file. > And I'd be surprised if there weren't any bugs or performance issues... Yeah. The CephFS kclient supports mmap, but I'm not sure Apache will be happy with the consistency rules around it. Probably best to avoid if you don't control the mmap calls (more specifically, the cache invalidation) yourself... -Greg > > Jan > >> On 19 Feb 2016, at 14:38, Dzianis Kahanovich <mahatma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I have content for apache 2.4 in cephfs, trying to be scalable, "EnableMMAP On". >> Some environments known as not friendly for MMAP for SMP scalability (more >> locks). What cephfs-specific recommendations about apache's EnableMMAP setting? >> >> -- >> WBR, Dzianis Kahanovich AKA Denis Kaganovich, http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |