I don't think you need a bucket under host for the two LVs. It's unnecessary. September 23, 2020 6:45 AM, "George Shuklin" <george.shuklin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23/09/2020 10:54, Marc Roos wrote: > >>> Depends on your expected load not? I already read here numerous of times >> that osd's can not keep up with nvme's, that is why people put 2 osd's >> on a single nvme. So on a busy node, you probably run out of cores? (But >> better verify this with someone that has an nvme cluster ;)) > > Did you? I just start to though about this idea too, as some devices can deliver about twice of the > own ceph-osd performance. > > How they did it? > > I have an idea to create a new bucket type under host, and put two LV from each ceph osd VG into > that new bucket. Rules are the same (different host), so redundancy won't be affected, but doubling > number of ceph-osd daemons can squeeze a bit more iops from backend devices at expense of doubling > Rocksdb size (reducing payload size) and using more cores. > > And I really want to hear all bad things about this setup before trying it. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |