Quoting Lars Täuber (taeuber@xxxxxxx): > > I'd probably only use the 25G network for both networks instead of > > using both. Splitting the network usually doesn't help. > > This is something i was told to do, because a reconstruction of failed > OSDs/disks would have a heavy impact on the backend network. Opinions vary on running "public" only versus "public" / "backend". Having a separate "backend" network might lead to difficult to debug issues when the "public" network is working fine, but the "backend" is having issues and OSDs can't peer with each other, while the clients can talk to all OSDs. You will get slow requests and OSDs marking each other down while they are still running etc. There might also be pro's for running a separate "backend" network, anyone? In your case with only 6 spinners max per server there is no way you will every fill the network capacity of a 25 Gb/s network: 6 * 250 MB/s (for large spinners) should be just enough to fill a 10 Gb/s link. A redundant 25 Gb/s link would provide 50 Gb/s of bandwith, enough for both OSD replication traffic and client IO. My 2 cents, Gr. Stefan -- | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/ Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / info@xxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |