Hi All, this would be interesting for us (at least temporarily). Do you think it would be better to run the mon as a VM on the OSD host or natively?
Greetings André ----- Am 11. Feb 2015 um 20:56 schrieb pixelfairy pixelfa...@gmail.com: > i believe combining mon+osd, up to whatever magic number of monitors you want, > is common in small(ish) clusters. i also have a 3 node ceph cluster at home > and > doing mon+osd, but not client. only rbd served to the vm hosts. no problem > even > with my abuses (yanking disks out, shutting down nodes etc) starting and > stopping the whole cluster works fine too. > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Christopher Armstrong < ch...@opdemand.com > > wrote: > > > > Thanks for reporting, Nick - I've seen the same thing and thought I was just > crazy. > > Chris > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Nick Fisk < n...@fisk.me.uk > wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > I have had a few weird issues when shutting down a node, although I can > replicate it by doing a “stop ceph-all” as well. It seems that OSD failure > detection takes a lot longer when a monitor goes down at the same time, > sometimes I have seen the whole cluster grind to a halt for several minutes > before it works out whats happened. > > > > If I stop the either role and wait for it to be detected as failed and then do > the next role, I don’t see the problem. So it might be something to keep in > mind when doing maintenance. > > > > Nick > > > > From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com ] On Behalf Of > David > Graham > Sent: 10 February 2015 17:07 > To: ceph-us...@ceph.com > Subject: [ceph-users] combined ceph roles > > > > > Hello, I'm giving thought to a minimal footprint scenario with full > redundancy. > I realize it isn't ideal--and may impact overall performance -- but wondering > if the below example would work, supported, or known to cause issue? > > > Example, 3x hosts each running: > -- OSD's > -- Mon > -- Client > > > > I thought I read a post a while back about Client+OSD on the same host > possibly > being an issue -- but i am having difficulty finding that reference. > > > I would appreciate if anyone has insight into such a setup, > > thanks! > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- André Gemünd Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing andre.gemu...@scai.fraunhofer.de Tel: +49 2241 14-2193 /C=DE/O=Fraunhofer/OU=SCAI/OU=People/CN=Andre Gemuend _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
