Re: Single vs multiple cephfs file systems pros and cons

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:46 PM Vladimir Brik
<vladimir.brik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> When would it be a good idea to use multiple smaller cephfs
> filesystems (in the same cluster) instead a big single one
> with active-active MDSs?
>
> I am migrating about 900M files from Lustre to Ceph and I am
> wondering if I should use a single file system or two
> filesystems. Right now the only significant benefit of using
> multiple cephfs filesystems I see is that a metadata scrub
> wouldn't take as long.
>
> Do people have other thoughts about single vs multiple
> filesystems?

Major consideration points: cost of having multiple MDS running (more
memory/cpu used), inability to move files between the two hierarchies
without full copies, and straightforward scaling w/ different file
systems.

Active-active file systems can often function in a similar way with
subtree pinning without the drawbacks.

-- 
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux