Basically what we're trying to figure out looks like what is being done here: http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-September/020958.html
Regards,
But instead of using LIBRADOS to store EMAILs directly into RADOS we're still using CEPHFS for it, just figuring out if it makes sense to separate them in different workloads.
Webert Lima
DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia
Belo Horizonte - Brasil
IRC NICK - WebertRLZ
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:07 AM, Marc Roos <M.Roos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If I would like to use an erasurecode pool for a cephfs directory how
would I create these placement rules?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Turner [mailto:drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vrijdag 11 mei 2018 1:54
To: João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: howto: multiple ceph filesystems
Another option you could do is to use a placement rule. You could create
a general pool for most data to go to and a special pool for specific
folders on the filesystem. Particularly I think of a pool for replica vs
EC vs flash for specific folders in the filesystem.
If the pool and OSDs wasn't the main concern for multiple filesystems
and the mds servers are then you could have multiple active mds servers
and pin the metadata for the indexes to one of them while the rest is
served by the other active mds servers.
I really haven't come across a need for multiple filesystems in ceph
with the type of granularity you can achieve with mds pinning, folder
placement rules, and cephx authentication to limit a user to a specific
subfolder.
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 5:10 PM João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
<joaopaulosr95@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey John, thanks for you answer. For sure the hardware robustness
will be nice enough. My true concern was actually the two FS ecosystem
coexistence. In fact I realized that we may not use this as well because
it may be represent a high overhead, despite the fact that it's a
experiental feature yet.
On Thu, 10 May 2018 at 15:48 John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:38 PM, João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro
Bastos
<joaopaulosr95@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> My company is about to rebuild its whole infrastructure, so
I was called in
> order to help on the planning. We are essentially an
corporate mail
> provider, so we handle daily lots of clients using dovecot
and roundcube and
> in order to do so we want to design a better plant of our
cluster. Today,
> using Jewel, we have a single cephFS for both index and mail
from dovecot,
> but we want to split it into an index_FS and a mail_FS to
handle the
> workload a little better, is it profitable nowadays? From my
research I
> realized that we will need data and metadata individual
pools for each FS
> such as a group of MDS for each of then, also.
>
> The one thing that really scares me about all of this is: we
are planning to
> have four machines at full disposal to handle our MDS
instances. We started
> to think if an idea like the one below is valid, can anybody
give a hint on
> this? We basically want to handle two MDS instances on each
machine (one for
> each FS) and wonder if we'll be able to have them swapping
between active
> and standby simultaneously without any trouble.
>
> index_FS: (active={machines 1 and 3}, standby={machines 2
and 4})
> mail_FS: (active={machines 2 and 4}, standby={machines 1 and
3})
Nothing wrong with that setup, but remember that those servers
are
going to have to be well-resourced enough to run all four at
once
(when a failure occurs), so it might not matter very much
exactly
which servers are running which daemons.
With a filesystem's MDS daemons (i.e. daemons with the same
standby_for_fscid setting), Ceph will activate whichever
daemon comes
up first, so if it's important to you to have particular
daemons
active then you would need to take care of that at the point
you're
starting them up.
John
>
> Regards,
> --
>
> João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
> +55 31 99279-7092
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
+55 31 99279-7092
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
