On 06/02/2014 11:24 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> A more or less obvious alternative for CephFS would be to simply create >> a huge RBD and have a separate file server (running NFS / Samba / >> whatever) use that block device as backend. Just put a regular FS on top >> of the RBD and use it that way. >> Clients wouldn't really have any of the real performance and resilience >> benefits that Ceph could offer though, because the (single machine?) >> file server is now the bottleneck.
Performance: assuming all your nodes are fast storage on a quad-10Gb pipe. Resilience: your gateway can be an active-passive HA pair, that shouldn't be any different from NFS+DRBD setups. > It's kind of a tough call. Your observations regarding the downsides of > using NFS with RBD are apt. You could try throwing another distributed > storage system on top of RBD and use Ceph for the replication/etc, but > that's not really ideal either. CephFS is relatively stable with > active/standby MDS configurations, but it may still have bugs and there > are no guarantees or official support (yet!). If you believe in the "10 years" rule of thumb, cephfs will become stable enough for production use sometime between 2017 and 2022 dep. on whether you start counting from Sage's thesis defense or from the first official code release. ;) -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
