If you google "ceph bluestore" you'll be able to find a couple slide decks on the topic. One of them by Sage is easy to follow without the benefit of the presentation. There's also the " Redhat Ceph Storage Roadmap 2016" deck.
In any case, bluestore is not intended to address bitrot. Given that ceph is a distributed file system, many of the posix file system features are not required for the underlying block storage device. Bluestore is intended to address this and reduce the disk IO required to store user data. Ceph protects against bitrot at a much higher level by validating the checksum of the entire placement group during a deep scrub. -H > On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:06, Schlacta, Christ <aarc...@aarcane.org> wrote: > > > On Mar 18, 2016 4:31 PM, "Lionel Bouton" <lionel-subscript...@bouton.name> > > > > Will bluestore provide the same protection against bitrot than BTRFS? > > Ie: with BTRFS the deep-scrubs detect inconsistencies *and* the OSD(s) > > with invalid data get IO errors when trying to read corrupted data and > > as such can't be used as the source for repairs even if they are primary > > OSD(s). So with BTRFS you get a pretty good overall protection against > > bitrot in Ceph (it allowed us to automate the repair process in the most > > common cases). With XFS IIRC unless you override the default behavior > > the primary OSD is always the source for repairs (even if all the > > secondaries agree on another version of the data). > > I have a functionally identical question about bluestore, but with zfs > instead of btrfs. Do you have more info on this bluestore? > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
