(Sorry for top posting - on phone) Related to some extent. Multimds will help when your small file issue is metadata bound, but I was actually thinking of data path random io latency. So begs the question as to what the survey meant by it...? On 04/11/2014 4:34 pm, "Mariusz Gronczewski" < mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:36:07 +1100, Blair Bethwaite > <blair.bethwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys > > will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... > > > > fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what > > I'd consider "icing" features - they're nice to have but not on the > > critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production > > setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and > > gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and > > positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. > > > > Those are related; if small file performance will be enough for one > MDS to handle high load with a lot of small files (typical case of > webserver), having multiple acive MDS will be less of a priority; > > And if someone currently have OSD on bunch of relatively weak nodes, > again, having active-active setup with MDS will be more interesting to > him than someone that can just buy new fast machine for it. > > > -- > Mariusz Gronczewski, Administrator > > Efigence S. A. > ul. WoĊoska 9a, 02-583 Warszawa > T: [+48] 22 380 13 13 > F: [+48] 22 380 13 14 > E: mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com > <mailto:mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com> >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
