On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lars Täuber <taeuber@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Paul for the judgement. > > Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:13:03 +0200 > Paul Emmerich <paul.emmerich@xxxxxxxx> ==> Lars Täuber <taeuber@xxxxxxx> : > > Seems in line with what I'd expect for the hardware. > > > > Your hardware seems to be way overspecced, you'd be fine with half the > > RAM, half the CPU and way cheaper disks. > > Do you mean all the components of the cluster or only the OSD-nodes? > Before making the requirements i only read about mirroring clusters. I was afraid of the CPUs being to slow to calculate the erasure codes we planned to use. Erasure coding is quite fast, you are not running into a CPU bottleneck anytime soon on HDDs. I don't have the numbers in my head, but just try running perf top on an erasure coded OSD while it's recovering, erasure coding is really insignificant here. Paul > > > > In fakt, a good SATA 4kn disk can be faster than a SAS 512e disk. > > This is a really good hint, because we just started to plan the extension. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Paul > > > > Thanks again. > > Lars _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |