Would you be willing to accept the risk of data loss? > On Jan 31, 2024, at 2:48 PM, quag...@bol.com.br wrote: > > Hello everybody, > I would like to make a suggestion for improving performance in Ceph > architecture. > I don't know if this group would be the best place or if my proposal is > correct. > > My suggestion would be in the item > https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/architecture/, at the end of the topic "Smart > Daemons Enable Hyperscale". > > The Client needs to "wait" for the configured amount of replicas to be > written (so that the client receives an ok and continues). This way, if there > is slowness on any of the disks on which the PG will be updated, the client > is left waiting. > > It would be possible: > > 1-) Only record on the primary OSD > 2-) Write other replicas in background (like the same way as when an OSD > fails: "degraded" ). > > This way, client has a faster response when writing to storage: > improving latency and performance (throughput and IOPS). > > I would find it plausible to accept a period of time (seconds) until all > replicas are ok (written asynchronously) at the expense of improving > performance. > > Could you evaluate this scenario? > > > Rafael. > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
