Just to clarify to prevent any confusion. Honestly I've never used ext4 as underlying filesystem for the Ceph cluster, but according to wiki [1], ext4 is recommended -; [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph_%28software%29 Shinobu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Sage Weil" <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-users@xxxxxxxx, ceph-maintainers@xxxxxxxx, ceph-announce@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:57:16 AM Subject: Re: Deprecating ext4 support On 04/11/2016 04:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Sage Weil wrote: >> Hi, >> >> ext4 has never been recommended, but we did test it. After Jewel is out, >> we would like explicitly recommend *against* ext4 and stop testing it. > > I should clarify that this is a proposal and solicitation of feedback--we > haven't made any decisions yet. Now is the time to weigh in. To add to this on the performance side, we stopped doing regular performance testing on ext4 (and btrfs) sometime back around when ICE was released to focus specifically on filestore behavior on xfs. There were some cases at the time where ext4 was faster than xfs, but not consistently so. btrfs is often quite fast on fresh fs, but degrades quickly due to fragmentation induced by cow with small-writes-to-large-object workloads (IE RBD small writes). If btrfs auto-defrag is now safe to use in production it might be worth looking at again, but probably not ext4. Set sail for bluestore! Mark > > sage > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > _______________________________________________ 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
 |