Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:52:29 +0200 Stefan Kooman <stefan@xxxxxx> ==> Lars Täuber <taeuber@xxxxxxx> : > 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. This I was not aware of. > 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. The reason for the choice for the 25GBit network was because a remark of someone, that the latency in this ethernet is way below that of 10GBit. I never double checked this. > > My 2 cents, > > Gr. Stefan > Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |