Thanks Greg, Joao and David,
The concept why odd no. of monitors are preferred is clear to me, but still I
am not clear about the working of Paxos algorithm:
#1. All changes in any data structure of monitor whether it is monitor map, OSD
map, PG map, MDS map or CRUSH map; are made through Paxos algorithm and
#2. Paxos algorithm also establish a quorum among the monitors for recent copy
of cluster map.
I am unable to understand how these two things are related and connected ? how
does Paxos provide these two functionalities?
Please help to clarify these points.
Regards
Pragya Jain
On Saturday, 30 August 2014 7:29 AM, Joao Eduardo Luis <joao.l...@inktank.com>
wrote:
>
>
>On 08/29/2014 11:22 PM, J David wrote:
>
>> So an even number N of monitors doesn't give you any better fault
>> resilience than N-1 monitors. And the more monitors you have, the
>> more traffic there is between them. So when N is even, N monitors
>> consume more resources and provide no extra benefit compared to N-1
>>
monitors.
>
>Except for more copies ;)
>
>But yeah, if you're going with 2 or 4, you'll be better off with 3 or 5.
> As long as you don't go with 1 you should be okay. Only go with 1 if
>you're truly okay with losing whatever you're storing if that one
>monitor's disk is fried.
>
> -Joao
>
>
>--
>Joao Eduardo Luis
>Software Engineer | http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
