Our (DreamHost's) largest cluster is roughly the same size as yours, ~3PB on just shy of 1100 OSDs currently. The architecture's quite similar too, except we have "separate" 10G front-end and back-end networks with a partial spine-leaf architecture using 40G interconnects. I say "separate" because the networks only exist in the logical space; they aren't separated among different bits of network gear. Another thing of note is that Ceph will prevent the marking down of entire racks of OSDs without crazy tweaks of your CRUSH map (via the mon_osd_down_out_subtree_limit config option). That actually saved us recently when we suffered a couple of switch crashes one weekend.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Dan Van Der Ster <daniel.vanders...@cern.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > On 1 Apr 2014 at 15:59:07, Andrey Korolyov (and...@xdel.ru) wrote: > > On 04/01/2014 03:51 PM, Robert Sander wrote: >> On 01.04.2014 13:38, Karol Kozubal wrote: >> >>> I am curious to know what is the largest known ceph production >>> deployment? >> >> I would assume it is the CERN installation. >> >> Have a look at the slides from Frankfurt Ceph Day: >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/Inktank_Ceph/scaling-ceph-at-cern >> >> Regards >> > > Just curious, how CERN guys built the network topology to prevent > possible cluster splits, because split in the middle will cause huge > downtime even for a relatively short split time enough to mark half of > those 1k OSDs as down by remaining MON majority. > > > The mons are distributed around the data centre, across N switches. > The OSDs are across a few switches -- actually, we could use CRUSH rules to > replicate across switches but didn't do so because of an (unconfirmed) fear > that the uplinks would become a bottleneck. > So a switch or routing outage scenario is clearly a point of failure where > some PGs could become stale, but we've been lucky enough not to suffer from > that yet. > > BTW, this 3PB cluster was built to test the scalability of Ceph's > implementation, not because we have 3PB of data to store in Ceph today (most > of the results of those tests are discussed in that presentation.). And we > are currently partitioning this cluster down into a smaller production > instance for Cinder and other instances for ongoing tests. > > BTW#2, I don't think the CERN cluster is the largest. Isn't DreamHost's > bigger? > > Cheers, Dan > > -- Dan van der Ster || Data & Storage Services || CERN IT Department -- > > _______________________________________________ > 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
