Jason, The family and I are doing well, thanks for asking. I haven't worked with Octopus yet, so I can't really talk towards that. Ceph historically hasn't cared about physical disk layout, and personally I think the Ceph code path is too heavy to really worry about optimizations there. The LVM layer generally is pretty light and you usually get more benefits than performance hit such relocating and extending devices online. Sorry, I can't talk to how cephadm operates. Robert LeBlanc ---------------- Robert LeBlanc PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:25 PM Jason Borden <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Robert! > > Thanks for answering my question. I take it you're working a lot with Ceph these days! On my pre-octopus clusters I did use LVM backed by partitions, but I always kind of wondered if it was a good practice or not as it added an additional layer and obscures the underlying disk topology. Then on this new octopus cluster I wanted to use the new cephadm approach for management and it seems to steer you away from using partitions or LVM directly, thus my question. I don't really have the option to not use partitions in this particular instance. I was merely curious if there was a particular reason that cephadm doesn't consider partitions (or LVM) as being "available" devices. All the storage in this cluster is the same so no need to split metadata on to faster storage in my instance. Anyway, it's good to hear from you. Hope you and your family are doing well. > > Thanks, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |