; these bigger chassis can also be deeper to get rid of the compromises.
> >
> > The reality with an OSD node is you don't need that many slots or network
> > ports.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Janne Johansson
> > Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:08
>
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 09:08 +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
> Den tors 23 apr. 2020 kl 08:49 skrev Darren Soothill <
> darren.sooth...@suse.com>:
>
> > If you want the lowest cost per TB then you will be going with
> > larger nodes in your cluster but it does mean you minimum cluster
> > size is
OSD node is you don't need that many slots or network
> ports.
>
>
>
> From: Janne Johansson
> Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:08
> To: Darren Soothill
> Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: Dear Abby: Why Is Architecting CEPH So Hard?
> Den tors
: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:08
To: Darren Soothill
Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: Dear Abby: Why Is Architecting CEPH So Hard?
Den tors 23 apr. 2020 kl 08:49 skrev Darren Soothill
mailto:darren.sooth...@suse.com>>:
If you want the lowest cost per TB th
Den tors 23 apr. 2020 kl 08:49 skrev Darren Soothill <
darren.sooth...@suse.com>:
> If you want the lowest cost per TB then you will be going with larger
> nodes in your cluster but it does mean you minimum cluster size is going to
> be many PB’s in size.
> Now the question is what is the tax
to go and will give you the lowest price point.
From: Martin Verges
Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 06:39
To: lin.yunfan
Cc: brian.topp...@gmail.com , ceph-users@ceph.io
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Dear Abby: Why Is Architecting CEPH So Hard?
From all our calculations of clusters, going
From all our calculations of clusters, going with smaller systems reduced
the TCO because of much cheaper hardware.
Having 100 Ceph nodes is not an issue, therefore you can scale small and
large clusters with the exact same hardware.
But please, prove me wrong. I would love to see a way to reduce
Big nodes are most for HDD cluster and with 40G nic or 100G nic I don't think the network would be the bottleneck.
Well, for starters, "more network" = "faster cluster."
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:18 PM lin.yunfan wrote:
> I have seen a lot of people saying not to go with big nodes.
> What is the exact reason for that?
> I can understand that if the cluster is not big enough then the total
> nodes count
I have seen a lot of people saying not to go with big nodes.
What is the exact reason for that?I can understand that if the cluster is not big enough then the total nodes count could be too small to withstand a node failure, but if the cluster is big enough
Great set of suggestions, thanks! One to consider:
> On Apr 22, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Jack wrote:
>
> I use 32GB flash-based satadom devices for root device
> They are basically SSD, and do not take front slots
> As they are never burning up, we never replace them
> Ergo, the need to "open" the
Hi,
On 4/22/20 11:47 PM, cody.schm...@iss-integration.com wrote:
> Example 1:
> 8x 60-Bay (8TB) Storage nodes (480x 8TB SAS Drives)
> Storage Node Spec:
> 2x 32C 2.9GHz AMD EPYC
>- Documentation mentions .5 cores per OSD for throughput optimized. Are
> they talking about .5 Physical cores
12 matches
Mail list logo
