We have a cephfs data pool with 52.8M files stored in 140.7M objects. That translates to a metadata pool size of 34.6MB across 1.5M objects.
On Jul 18, 2017 12:54 AM, "Blair Bethwaite" <blair.bethwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are a data-intensive university, with an increasingly large fleet > of scientific instruments capturing various types of data (mostly > imaging of one kind or another). That data typically needs to be > stored, protected, managed, shared, connected/moved to specialised > compute for analysis. Given the large variety of use-cases we are > being somewhat more circumspect it our CephFS adoption and really only > dipping toes in the water, ultimately hoping it will become a > long-term default NAS choice from Luminous onwards. > > On 18 July 2017 at 15:21, Brady Deetz <bde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All of that said, you could also consider using rbd and zfs or whatever > filesystem you like. That would allow you to gain the benefits of scaleout > while still getting a feature rich fs. But, there are some down sides to > that architecture too. > > We do this today (KVMs with a couple of large RBDs attached via > librbd+QEMU/KVM), but the throughput able to be achieved this way is > nothing like native CephFS - adding more RBDs doesn't seem to help > increase overall throughput. Also, if you have NFS clients you will > absolutely need SSD ZIL. And of course you then have a single point of > failure and downtime for regular updates etc. > > In terms of small file performance I'm interested to hear about > experiences with in-line file storage on the MDS. > > Also, while we're talking about CephFS - what size metadata pools are > people seeing on their production systems with 10s-100s millions of > files? >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
