Yeah that's what I said at first but they want to keep everything managed inside the OpenStack ecosystem, so I guess they'll be keen to test Manila integration!
On Friday, May 22, 2015, Gregory Farnum <g...@gregs42.com> wrote: > If you guys have stuff running on Hadoop, you might consider testing > out CephFS too. Hadoop is a predictable workload that we haven't seen > break at all in several years and the bindings handle data locality > and such properly. :) > -Greg > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Wang, Warren > <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > On 5/21/15, 5:04 AM, "Blair Bethwaite" <blair.bethwa...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >>Hi Warren, > >> > >>On 20 May 2015 at 23:23, Wang, Warren <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com > <javascript:;>> > >>wrote: > >>> We¹ve contemplated doing something like that, but we also realized that > >>> it would result in manual work in Ceph everytime we lose a drive or > >>> server, > >>> and a pretty bad experience for the customer when we have to do > >>> maintenance. > >> > >>Yeah I guess you have to delete and recreate the pool, but is that > >>really so bad? > > > > Or trash the associated volumes. Plus the perceived failure rate from > > client perspective would be high, especially when we have to do things > > like reboots. > > > >> > >>> We also kicked around the idea of leveraging the notion of a Hadoop > rack > >>> to define a set of instances which are Cinder volume backed, and the > >>>rest > >>> be ephemeral drives (not Ceph backed ephemeral). Using 100% ephemeral > >>> isn¹t out of the question either, but we have seen a few instances > where > >>> all the instances in a region were quickly terminated. > >> > >>What's the implication here - the HDFS instances were terminated and > >>that would have caused Hadoop data-loss had they been ephemeral? > > > > Yeah. Of course it would be able to tolerate up to 2/3 but 100% would > > result in permanent data loss. I see the Intel folks are tackling this > > from the object backed approach: > > > > > https://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Infernalis/rgw%3A_Hadoop_FileSyst > > em_Interface_for_a_RADOS_Gateway_Caching_Tier > > > > Probably should have chatted with them about that. I totally forgot. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <javascript:;> > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- - Sent from the little keys
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
