> That does not seem like a lot. Having SSD based metadata pools might > reduce latency though. > So block.db and block.wal doesn't make sense? I would like to have a consistent cluster. In either case I would need to remove or add SSDs, because we currently have this mixed. It does waste a lot of space. But might be worth it if performance > improves a lot. You might also be able to separate small objects from > large objects based on placement targets / storage classes [1]. This > would allow you to store small objects on SSD. Those might be more > latency sensitive than large objects anyway? > > Gr. Stefan > > [1]: https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/radosgw/placement/ > Puh, large topic. Would removing the smaller files from the spinning disks release enough pressure from the flying heads to speed up large file uploads? Could be a test, but I don't know if this would work as expected. I can imagine that this leads to larger problems, when the SSD OSDs run out of space. Also I would rather add more spinning disks because we also need a lot of space. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |