Hello, On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 19:33:22 +0100 joakim@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question regarding if Ceph is suitable for small scale > deployments. > Depends on your use case, in general Ceph wants to be scaled out. > Lets say I have two machines, connected with gbit lan. > Unless you're trying to learn Ceph and are willing to deal with the shortcomings (for example loosing one node will result in total inaccessible data w/o a 3rd MON node) resulting from such a minimalistic setup, check out DRBD. > I want to share data between them, like an ordinary NFS > share, but with Ceph instead. > Again, DRBD and with either a fail-over FS or cluster aware FS or HA-NFS cluster setup. Sharing data is not what Ceph (RBD) is about and CephFS is overkill. > My idea is that with Ceph I would have redundancy with two machines > having complete copies of the data. I also imagine that the > performance could be quite okay in principle, depending on how Ceph > works, which I'm not quite sure of. > See above. > A use case would be to share my home directory on two machines, or > three maybe. > Again, see above. Several choices with 2 nodes, NFS if 3. > A workload I'm concerned with is software builds. Would Ceph be > competetive in this use-case as compared with a local disk? Not by a long shot. >As far as > I can tell Ceph doesn't use the "eventual consistency" approach. Does > that mean that all writes have to sync over all the nodes in the Ceph > cluster, before the write can be considered complete? Or is one node > enough? > Al nodes by default. Christian > /Joakim > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |