From my experience with Ceph in production over the last +8 years, it
is only a matter of time that pools with replication size of 2 or
erasure coding with m = 1 will lead to service outages and/or data loss
and cause problems in day2 operations.
___________________________________
Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member
support@xxxxxxxxx
https://www.clyso.com
Am 17.08.2021 um 16:54 schrieb Anthony D'Atri:
There are cerrtain sequences of events that can result in Ceph not knowing which copy of a PG (if any) has the current information. That’s one way you can effectively lose data.
I ran into it myself last year on a legacy R2 cluster.
If you *must* have a 2:1 raw:usable ratio, you’re better off with 2,2 EC. Asuming you have at least 4 failure domains.
There are only two ways that size=2 can go:
A) You set min_size=1 and risk data loss
B) You set min_size=2 and your cluster stops every time you lose a
drive or reboot a machine
Neither of these are good options for most use cases; but there's
always an edge case. You should stay with size=3, min_size=2 unless
you have an unusual use case.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michel Niyoyita <micou12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all ,
Going to deploy a ceph cluster in production with replicas size of 2 . Is
there any inconvenience on the service side ? I am going to change the
default (3) to 2.
Please advise.
Regards.
Michel
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
