On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:30:38PM +0200, Tim Mohlmann wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, thanks for al the info. > > Just "fyi", I am a mechanical / electrical marine service engineer. So > basicly > I think in Pressure, Flow, Contents, Voltage, (mili)amps, power and torque. > So > I am just trying to relevate it to the same prinicple. Hence my questions. I > am certainly not a noob in linux, opensource and that kind of stuff. > > It is just I got interested in on-line storage and by some googling I came > across certain "products" (most of them being propietary) and some of them > opensource (but looked unmaintained / not very modern) and one of them was > ceph. After the reading the docs I had some questions and in my opinion they > are answered. > > I know now how to spend the money, and now it time to start finding out how > to > make it. I've got a whole bucket of ideas about public apps for my storage > and > all this needs to be researched for possibilities. (This was yet the start of > my quest). >
Every journey starts with the first step. :-) > Again, thanks for the info. If this baby is going to fly, I will keep you > posted about my findings. Maybe (and really really maybe) I will try to > contribute to the source, for some features I already think I want to have ;). > Don't be shy about sharing your ideas for new features, maybe some are already available or you might be able to do it with some scripting. Maybe someone thinks it is something they might want to have as well and will start to work on it. Recently there was an online developer summit to try and compile such a list for the near term: http://ceph.com/events/ceph-developer-summit-summary-and-session-videos/ > Regards, Tim > > > On Monday 13 May 2013 00:25:19 Dmitri Maziuk wrote: > > On 2013-05-12 08:34, Tim Mohlmann wrote: > > > As for choking the backplane: That would just slow things down a bit, am I > > > right? > > > > A bit, a lot, or not at all -- I think IRL you'll have to test it under > > your workload and see. > > > > [ WD performance ] > > > > > Did not know that. Do you have any references. Does this also apply for > > > the > > > enterprise disks? > > > > Here's one write-up: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Advanced_Format > > > > Have not tested "enterprise" disks. > > > > > Another question: do you use desktop or enterprise disks in your cluster? > > > I am having trouble finding a MTBFs for desktop drives. And if I find > > > them, they are almost the same as enterprise drives. Is there a caveat in > > > there? Is the failure test done is different conditions? (Not that you > > > have to know that) > > > > > > If the annual failure rate would be double, it would still be cheaper to > > > use desktop drives in a large cluster, but I just like to know to be > > > sure. > > I don't think anyone knows for sure how much of it is marketing bull. > > One rumour is the difference between "enterprise" and "desktop" drives > > is very often only the firmware and the price tag. So yeah, we use > > desktop versions because it's cheaper, but we use them in raids (usually > > 1/10 - and it's still cheaper), and we don't do super high performance > > i/o on them. (Our requirements are size rather than speed.) > > > > Dima > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
