Hi Sage,
we run ext4 only on our 8node-cluster with 110 OSDs and are quite happy
with ext4.
We start with xfs but the latency was much higher comparable to ext4...
But we use RBD only with "short" filenames like
rbd_data.335986e2ae8944a.00000000000761e1.
If we can switch from Jewel to K* and change during the update the
filestore for each OSD to BlueStore it's will be OK for us.
I hope we will get than an better performance with BlueStore??
Will be BlueStore production ready during the Jewel-Lifetime, so that we
can switch to BlueStore before the next big upgrade?
Udo
Am 11.04.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Sage Weil:
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.
Why:
Recently we discovered an issue with the long object name handling that is
not fixable without rewriting a significant chunk of FileStores filename
handling. (There is a limit in the amount of xattr data ext4 can store in
the inode, which causes problems in LFNIndex.)
We *could* invest a ton of time rewriting this to fix, but it only affects
ext4, which we never recommended, and we plan to deprecate FileStore once
BlueStore is stable anyway, so it seems like a waste of time that would be
better spent elsewhere.
Also, by dropping ext4 test coverage in ceph-qa-suite, we can
significantly improve time/coverage for FileStore on XFS and on BlueStore.
The long file name handling is problematic anytime someone is storing
rados objects with long names. The primary user that does this is RGW,
which means any RGW cluster using ext4 should recreate their OSDs to use
XFS. Other librados users could be affected too, though, like users
with very long rbd image names (e.g., > 100 characters), or custom
librados users.
How:
To make this change as visible as possible, the plan is to make ceph-osd
refuse to start if the backend is unable to support the configured max
object name (osd_max_object_name_len). The OSD will complain that ext4
cannot store such an object and refuse to start. A user who is only using
RBD might decide they don't need long file names to work and can adjust
the osd_max_object_name_len setting to something small (say, 64) and run
successfully. They would be taking a risk, though, because we would like
to stop testing on ext4.
Is this reasonable? If there significant ext4 users that are unwilling to
recreate their OSDs, now would be the time to speak up.
Thanks!
sage
_______________________________________________
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
