Nobody cares about their data until they don't have it anymore. Using replica 3 is the same logic as RAID6. Its likely if one drive has crapped out, more will meet the maker soon. If you care about your data, then do what you can to keep it around. If its a lab like mine, who cares.... its all ephemeral to me. The decision is about your use case and workload.
If it was my production data, i would spend the money. On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Den fre 25 maj 2018 kl 00:20 skrev Jack <c...@jack.fr.eu.org>: > >> On 05/24/2018 11:40 PM, Stefan Kooman wrote: >> >> What are your thoughts, would you run 2x replication factor in >> >> Production and in what scenarios? >> Me neither, mostly because I have yet to read a technical point of view, >> from someone who read and understand the code >> >> I do not buy Janne's "trust me, I am an engineer", whom btw confirmed >> that the "replica 3" stuff is subject to probability and function to the >> cluster size, thus is not a generic "always-true" rule >> > > I did not call for trust on _my_ experience or value, but on the ones > posting the > first "everyone should probably use 3 replicas" over which you showed > doubt. > I agree with them, but did not intend to claim that my post had extra > value because > it was written by me. > > Also, the last part of my post was very much intended to add "not > everything in 3x is true for everyone", > but if you value your data, it would be very prudent to listen to > experienced people who took risks and lost data before. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
