> > 17.10.2023 12:22, Filip Hanes via dovecot пишет: > > S3-compatible storage is very good for multi-server installations where > you need redundancy, availability. S3 is basically HTTP server so you can > code your own logic on stored emails, balancers, caches, deduplication, > compression, encryption it does't need to be off-the-shelf storage. > > > is S3 better then cephfs? >
The drawbacks of cephfs is you need to have the mds. If you scale the mds you could have some issues. I think even in newer ceph releases you need to start pin them on pools / directories. I still have issues with cephfs mounts locking up on a hyperconverged setup so I am not using it in production, but I am still on a older version. The flip side to using the mds, is that it is caching a lot of meta data so in theory you could have a better performance with cephfs than writing directly to rados. Writing to rados directly seems to me the most stable. What I thought was super strange about the s3/radowsgw layer is that if you rename a file, the file is actually copied to a new name. It is not renamed. I am not sure if this is a standard and still like this, but s3 is just developed for a different use. So it depends on how you use s3/radosgw, object storage directly or cephfs. _______________________________________________ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
