| Hi David!!
Thanks a lot for your answer. But what happens when you have... imagine two monitors or more and one of them becomes unreponsive?. Another one is used after a timeout or... what happens when a client wants to access to some data, needs to query for that (for knowing where the info is) a monitor and does not answer?. A monitor that becomes not responsive is discarded for the following queries of where the data exists in the cluster?.
So saying in some way... you wont use when talking in terms of performance any kind of solution not accessing through librbd?. Is the performance poor or bad when using /dev/rbdX devices mounted?. Or perhaps you say in terms of data integrity?.
I was planning to use Xen with Cepth but after your advine ... 😀. Would you definitively to with KVM?.
Thanks a lot again 😉 Chefs,
Egoitz, Monitors are not required for accessing data from the Ceph cluster. Clients will ask a monitor for a current OSD map and then use that OSD map to communicate with the OSDs directly for all reads and writes. The map includes the crush map which has all of the information a client needs to know where every object is in the cluster. Having 3 mons is a good number for small deployments. 5 mons is better for better redundancy in the monitor quorum. Avoid an even number of mons always.
librbd is definitely the way to go for accessing RBDs for a hypervisor as opposed to fuse or krbd. For a quick and easy hypervisor using Ceph, I like Proxmox. It natively has the ability to use KVM with Ceph without having to configure it yourself. It comes with a nice gui as well to see the console screen for your VMs. It also has a fairly simple guide to cluster hypervisors together to provide HA support for your VMs. For larger scale VM deployments, Openstack is probably the way I would go. Good afternoon,
As I'm new to Ceph I was wondering what could be the most proper way to
use it with Xen hypervisor (with a plain Linux installation, Centos, for
instance). Have read the less proper one is to just
mount the /dev/rbdX device in a mount point and just showing that space
to the Hypervisor but I see it pretty easy and seems stable. Seems not
to perform bad... Is it better to use for instance librbd
with KVM?. Does it perform better?.
By the way, it seems to use the monitor node in order to access to the
space in the osd cluster. Have read too that Ceph has been designed
keeping in mind no single points of failure but... is it possible
to configure several monitor nodes, and then after a very little timeout
or similar to access to the file system through the other nodes?. What
could be the most proper way of configuring this for avoiding a
machine to loose the storage if the monitor fails?. Could you point
please me in the right direction?. Perhaps with several monitors or....
By the way if you could consider it would be better to use another
hypervisor or config (with librados or whatever) with Ceph, could you
please suggest me too?. Help to the newbie :p :) :)
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
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
