Got it Gregory, sounds good enough for us. Thank you all for the help provided.
Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> wrote: > Nah, I would use one Filesystem unless you can’t. The backtrace does > create another object but IIRC it’s a maximum one IO per create/rename (on > the file). > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:12 PM Webert de Souza Lima < > webert.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for clarifying that, Gregory. >> >> As said before, we use the file layout to resolve the difference of >> workloads in those 2 different directories in cephfs. >> Would you recommend using 2 filesystems instead? By doing so, each fs >> would have it's default data pool accordingly. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Webert Lima >> DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia >> *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* >> *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:33 AM Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The backtrace object Zheng referred to is used only for resolving hard >>> links or in disaster recovery scenarios. If the default data pool isn’t >>> available you would stack up pending RADOS writes inside of your mds but >>> the rest of the system would continue unless you manage to run the mds out >>> of memory. >>> -Greg >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM Webert de Souza Lima < >>> webert.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Zheng. >>>> >>>> Does that mean that, when using such feature, our data integrity relies >>>> now on both data pools' integrity/availability? >>>> >>>> We currently use such feature in production for dovecot's index files, >>>> so we could store this directory on a pool of SSDs only. The main data pool >>>> is made of HDDs and stores the email files themselves. >>>> >>>> There ain't too many files created, it's just a few files per email >>>> user, and basically one directory per user's mailbox. >>>> Each mailbox has a index file that is updated upon every new email >>>> received or moved, deleted, read, etc. >>>> >>>> I think in this scenario the overhead may be acceptable for us. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Webert Lima >>>> DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia >>>> *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* >>>> *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:51 AM Yan, Zheng <uker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:34 AM Webert de Souza Lima >>>>> <webert.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > hello, >>>>> > >>>>> > is there any performance impact on cephfs for using file layouts to >>>>> bind a specific directory in cephfs to a given pool? Of course, such pool >>>>> is not the default data pool for this cephfs. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> For each file, no matter which pool file data are stored, mds alway >>>>> create an object in the default data pool. The object in default data >>>>> pool is used for storing backtrace. So files stored in non-default >>>>> pool have extra overhead on file creation. For large file, the >>>>> overhead can be neglect. But for lots of small files, the overhead may >>>>> affect performance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Webert Lima >>>>> > DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia >>>>> > Belo Horizonte - Brasil >>>>> > IRC NICK - WebertRLZ >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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
