On 2019-08-05T07:27:39, Alfredo Daniel Rezinovsky <alfrenovsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's no massive problem with even MON counts.
As you note, n+2 doesn't really provide added fault tolerance compared
to n+1, so there's no win either. That's fairly obvious.
Somewhat less obvious - since the failure of any additional MON now will
lose quorum, and you know have, say, 3 instead of just 2, there's a
slightly higher chance that that case will trigger.
If the reason you're doing this is that you, say, want to standardize on
having one MON in each of your racks, and you happen to have 4 racks,
this is likely worth the trade-off.
And you can always manually lower the MON count to recover service even
then - from the durability perspective, you have one more copy of the
MON database afterall.
Probability is fun ;-)
Regards,
Lars
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Architects should open possibilities and not determine everything." (Ueli Zbinden)
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
