Den tors 15 aug. 2019 kl 00:16 skrev Anthony D'Atri <aad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Good points in both posts, but I think there’s still some unclarity.
...
We’ve seen good explanations on the list of why only specific DB sizes, say 30GB, are actually used _for the DB_.
If the WAL goes along with the DB, shouldn’t we also explicitly determine an appropriate size N for the WAL, and make the partition (30+N) GB?
If so, how do we derive N? Or is it a constant?
Filestore was so much simpler, 10GB set+forget for the journal. Not that I miss XFS, mind you.
But we got a simple handwaving-best-effort-guesstimate that went "WAL 1GB is fine, yes." so there you have an N you can use for the
30+N or 60+N sizings.
Can't see how that N needs more science than the filestore N=10G you showed. Not that I think journal=10G was wrong or anything.
May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
