Thanks for the info. I was erring to less pools but using software that does not share pools very well seem to put a spanner in the works at the time. I think we will work on making it more RBD friendly
Thanks Pieter On 12 May 2014, at 19:53, McNamara, Bradley <bradley.mcnam...@seattle.gov> wrote: > The formula was designed to be used on a per-pool basis. Having said that, > though, when looking at the number of PG’s from a system-wide perspective, > one does not want too many total PG’s. So, it’s a balancing act, and it has > been suggested that it’s better to have slightly more PG’s than you need, but > not too many. > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of > Pieter Koorts > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:21 AM > To: ceph-us...@ceph.com > Subject: [ceph-users] CEPH placement groups and pool sizes > > Hi, > > Been doing some reading on the CEPH documentation and just wanted to clarify > if anyone knows the (approximate) correct PG's for CEPH. > > What I mean is lets say I have created one pool with 4096 placement groups. > Now instead of one pool I want two so if I were to create 2 pools instead > would it be still 4096 placement groups per pool or would I divide it between > the pools (e.g. 2048 pg per pool) > > On a side note, per pool is that a recommended maximum of data before turning > over to a new pool? > > Regards > > Pieter
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
