Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Lorieri lori...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, if I have a situation when each node in a cluster writes their own files in cephfs, is it safe to use multiple MDS ? I mean, is the problem using multiple MDS related to nodes writing same files ? It's not a problem. each file has an authority MDS. Yan, Zheng thanks, -lorieri On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Shain Miley smi...@npr.org wrote: +1 for fsck and snapshots, being able to have snapshot backups and protect against accidental deletion, etc is something we are really looking forward to. Thanks, Shain On 11/04/2014 04:02 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Shain Miley | Manager of Systems and Infrastructure, Digital Media | smi...@npr.org | 202.513.3649 ___ 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
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
Hi, if I have a situation when each node in a cluster writes their own files in cephfs, is it safe to use multiple MDS ? I mean, is the problem using multiple MDS related to nodes writing same files ? thanks, -lorieri On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Shain Miley smi...@npr.org wrote: +1 for fsck and snapshots, being able to have snapshot backups and protect against accidental deletion, etc is something we are really looking forward to. Thanks, Shain On 11/04/2014 04:02 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Shain Miley | Manager of Systems and Infrastructure, Digital Media | smi...@npr.org | 202.513.3649 ___ 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
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Blair Bethwaite blair.bethwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. For the use case we're looking at cephfs for at $dayjob we really need snapshots. I think anyone building a cheap-and-deep cluster for archival storage would like to be more than one errant rm -rf away from a *very* long weekend. Thanks, -- Patrick Hahn ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 11/04/2014 10:02 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... I think the approach is correct. Everybody I talk to wants to kick out their NFS server, but you don't need multi MDS for that. Active/Standby is just fine. Wido sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Wido den Hollander 42on B.V. Ceph trainer and consultant Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 Skype: contact42on ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:36:07 +1100, Blair Bethwaite blair.bethwa...@gmail.com wrote: TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Those are related; if small file performance will be enough for one MDS to handle high load with a lot of small files (typical case of webserver), having multiple acive MDS will be less of a priority; And if someone currently have OSD on bunch of relatively weak nodes, again, having active-active setup with MDS will be more interesting to him than someone that can just buy new fast machine for it. -- Mariusz Gronczewski, Administrator Efigence S. A. ul. Wołoska 9a, 02-583 Warszawa T: [+48] 22 380 13 13 F: [+48] 22 380 13 14 E: mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com mailto:mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
Agreed Multi-MDS is a nice to have but not required for full production use. TBH stability and recovery will win any IT person dealing with filesystems. On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Mariusz Gronczewski mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:36:07 +1100, Blair Bethwaite blair.bethwa...@gmail.com wrote: TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Those are related; if small file performance will be enough for one MDS to handle high load with a lot of small files (typical case of webserver), having multiple acive MDS will be less of a priority; And if someone currently have OSD on bunch of relatively weak nodes, again, having active-active setup with MDS will be more interesting to him than someone that can just buy new fast machine for it. -- Mariusz Gronczewski, Administrator Efigence S. A. ul. Wołoska 9a, 02-583 Warszawa T: [+48] 22 380 13 13 F: [+48] 22 380 13 14 E: mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com mailto:mariusz.gronczew...@efigence.com ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Follow Me: @Scottix http://about.me/scottix scot...@gmail.com ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so important there. regards Mark ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 11/04/2014 03:11 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so important there. Do you need active/active or is active/passive good enough? regards Mark ___ 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
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 05/11/14 10:58, Mark Nelson wrote: On 11/04/2014 03:11 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so important there. Do you need active/active or is active/passive good enough? That is of course a good question. We are certainly seeing active/active as much better - essentially because all the other bits are, and it avoids the need to wake people up to change things. Does that make it essential? I'm not 100% sure, it might just be a nice to have that is so nice that we'll wait for it to be there! Cheers Mark ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so important there. Important clarification: multimds == multiple *active* MDS's. single mds means 1 active MDS and N standy's. One perfectly valid strategy, for example, is to run a ceph-mds on *every* node and let the mon pick whichever one is active. (That works as long as you have sufficient memory on all nodes.) sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 05/11/14 11:47, Sage Weil wrote: On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability. Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure multi mds not so important there. Important clarification: multimds == multiple *active* MDS's. single mds means 1 active MDS and N standy's. One perfectly valid strategy, for example, is to run a ceph-mds on *every* node and let the mon pick whichever one is active. (That works as long as you have sufficient memory on all nodes.) Righty, so I think I've (plus a few others perhaps) misunderstood the nature of the 'promotion mechanism' for 1 active several standby design - I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that you needed to 'do something' to make a standby active? If not then yeah it would be fine, sorry! ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
+1 for fsck and snapshots, being able to have snapshot backups and protect against accidental deletion, etc is something we are really looking forward to. Thanks, Shain On 11/04/2014 04:02 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt. I think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each person or something). fsck is a clear #1. Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few actually need it at this point. We'll be merging a soft quota patch shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure). That's my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that. We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on peoples' experiences with giant so far... sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Shain Miley | Manager of Systems and Infrastructure, Digital Media | smi...@npr.org | 202.513.3649 ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] cephfs survey results
In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas sage ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] cephfs survey results
On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote: In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS survey results looked like. Thanks Sage, that was me! Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/ In short, people want fsck multimds snapshots quotas TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys will apply a certain amount of filtering on this... fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what I'd consider icing features - they're nice to have but not on the critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here. -- Cheers, ~Blairo ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
