Re: bucket indices: ssd-only or is a large fast block.db sufficient?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Looks like you’ve considered the essential points for bluestore OSDs, yep. :)
My concern would just be the surprisingly-large block.db requirements for rgw workloads that have been brought up. (300+GB per OSD, I think someone saw/worked out?).
-Greg

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:35 AM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi ceph-users,

Most of our servers have 24 hdds plus 4 ssds.
Any experience how these should be configured to get the best rgw performance?

We have two options:
   1) All osds the same, with data on the hdd and block.db on a 40GB
ssd partition
   2) Two osd device types: hdd-only for the rgw data pool and
ssd-only for bucket index pool

But all of the bucket index data is in omap, right?
And all of the omap is stored in the rocks db, right?

After reading the recent threads about bluefs slow_used_bytes, I had
the thought that as long as we have a large enough block.db, then
slow_used_bytes will be 0 and all of the bucket indexes will be on
ssd-only, regardless of option (1) or (2) above.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Dan
_______________________________________________
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

[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux