Thanks for the info! Great data points. We will still recommend a separated
solution, but it's good to know that some have tried to unify compute and
storage and have had some success.


On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Mikaël Cluseau <mclus...@isi.nc> wrote:

> Hi Zach,
>
>
> On 08/09/2014 11:33 AM, Zach Hill wrote:
>
>> Generally, we recommend strongly against such a deployment in order to
>> ensure performance and failure isolation between the compute and storage
>> sides of the system. But, I'm curious if anyone is doing this in practice
>> and if they've found reasonable ways to make it work in production.
>>
>
> we are doing this in production since more than 2 years now because we
> couldn't afford more than a 2 nodes solution. There's of course a
> performance impact due to the pressure on the OS, but it didn't caused any
> lock or performance collapse.
>
> Of course, now that we had some production time behind us, we can afford
> scaling up and separating storage and compute concerns and will do, but
> only to be clean and allow each concern of the cluster to scale
> independently. For instance, I won't hesitate to add drives to compute
> hosts, should a massive increase in storage capacity demand come.
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to