Probably priorities have changed since RedHat acquired Ceph/InkTank (
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-acquire-inktank-provider-ceph ) ?
Why support a competing hypervisor ? Long term switching to KVM seems to be the solution.
From: ceph-users <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Max Cuttins
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:27 AM
To: David Turner <drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx>; dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ceph-users <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph iSCSI is a prank?
Il 28/02/2018 18:16, David Turner ha scritto:
My thought is that in 4 years you could have migrated to a hypervisor that will have better performance into ceph than an added iSCSI layer. I won't deploy VMs for ceph on anything that won't allow librbd to
work. Anything else is added complexity and reduced performance.
You are definitly right: I have to change hypervisor. So Why I didn't do this before?
Because both Citrix/Xen and Inktank/Ceph claim that they were ready to add support to Xen in
2013!
It was 2013:
XEN claim to support Ceph:
https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2013/07/08/xenserver-tech-preview-incorporating-ceph-object-stores-is-now-available/
Inktank say the support for Xen was almost ready:
https://ceph.com/geen-categorie/xenserver-support-for-rbd/
And also iSCSI was close (it was 2014):
https://ceph.com/geen-categorie/updates-to-ceph-tgt-iscsi-support/
So why change Hypervisor if everybody tell you that compatibility is almost ready to be deployed?
... but then "just" pass 4 years and both XEN and Ceph never become compatibile...
It's obvious that Citrix in not anymore belivable.
However, at least Ceph should have added iSCSI to it's platform during all these years.
Ceph is awesome, so why just don't kill all the competitors make it compatible even with washingmachine?
|
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
