...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some input on this, pretty
please?
ext4 has 256-byte inodes by default (at least according
wrote:
inline
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some
-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Jan Schermer
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some input on this,
pretty please?
ext4 has 256-byte inodes by default
...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Christian Balzer
Sent: 02 July 2015 02:23
To: Ceph Users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:36:18 + Somnath Roy wrote:
It is replaced with the following config option..
// Use omap for xattrs for attrs over
inline
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some input
...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Christian Balzer
Sent: 02 July 2015 02:23
To: Ceph Users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:36:18 + Somnath Roy wrote:
It is replaced with the following config option..
// Use omap for xattrs for attrs over
Hello all,
I've got a coworker who put filestore_xattr_use_omap = true in the
ceph.conf when we first started building the cluster. Now he can't
remember why. He thinks it may be a holdover from our first Ceph
cluster (running dumpling on ext4, iirc).
In the newly built cluster, we are using XFS
: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Hello all,
I've got a coworker who put filestore_xattr_use_omap = true in the ceph.conf
when we first started building the cluster. Now he can't remember why. He
thinks it may be a holdover from our first Ceph cluster (running dumpling on
ext4, iirc).
In the newly
Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Adam Tygart Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:20 AM
To: Ceph Users
Subject: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Hello all,
I've got a coworker who put filestore_xattr_use_omap = true in the
ceph.conf when we first
We've since merged something
that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
Hi Sage:
You wrote yet - should we earmark it for hammer backport?
Nathan
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Nathan Cutler ncut...@suse.cz wrote:
We've since merged something
that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
Hi Sage:
You wrote yet -
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Nathan Cutler wrote:
We've since merged something
that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
Hi Sage:
You wrote yet - should we earmark it
Hi Cephers,
While looking at disk utilization on OSD, I noticed the disk was constantly
busy with large number of small writes, further investigation showed that, as
radosgw uses xattrs to store metadata (e.g. etag, content-type, etc.), which
made the xattrs get from local to extents, which
-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
GuangYang
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:31 AM
To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: [ceph-users] xattrs vs. omap with radosgw
Hi Cephers,
While looking at disk utilization on OSD, I noticed the disk was constantly
busy
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Zhou, Yuan wrote:
FWIW, there was some discussion in OpenStack Swift and their performance
tests showed 255 is not the best in recent XFS. They decided to use large
xattr boundary size(65535).
https://gist.github.com/smerritt/5e7e650abaa20599ff34
If I read this
After back-porting Sage's patch to Giant, with radosgw, the xattrs can get
inline. I haven't run extensive testing yet, will update once I have some
performance data to share.
Thanks,
Guang
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:51:44 -0500
From: mnel...@redhat.com
To: yguan...@outlook.com;
Hi Yuan,
Thanks for sharing the link, it is interesting to read. My understanding of the
test results, is that with a fixed size of xattrs, using smaller stripe size
will incur larger latency for read, which kind of makes sense since there are
more k-v pairs, and with the size, it needs to get
17 matches
Mail list logo
