Istvan, I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially with EC pools. We are accepting this risk to lower the financial barrier to entry. In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD nodes and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures. Since we have multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might want to get Ceph to 'map' against that. In a way, NVMe devices are our 'nodes' at the current size of our cluster. -Dave -- Dave Hall Binghamton University On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) < Istvan.Szabo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If > the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each > server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also. > > Istvan Szabo > Senior Infrastructure Engineer > --------------------------------------------------- > Agoda Services Co., Ltd. > e: istvan.szabo@xxxxxxxxx > --------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hall <kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM > To: ceph-users <ceph-users@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Failure Domain = NVMe? > > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor > open attachments! > ________________________________ > > Hello, > > In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it > was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the > failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small cluster > the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD. > > I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define > failure-domain = NVMe? I think the map would need to be defined manually > in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about which > nodes are in each rack. > > Example: My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe. I'd set up the > WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe). > Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe > devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices. My preferred EC-pool profile > is 8+2. It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15 > failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure. > > Please let me know if this is worth pursuing. > > Thanks. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave Hall > Binghamton University > kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 607-760-2328 (Cell) > 607-777-4641 (Office) > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an > email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx > > ________________________________ > This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright > or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know > by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy > this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or > privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized > disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be > monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the > company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages > may be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses. > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |