I feel that the correct answer to this question is: it depends. I've been running a 1.75PB Jewel based cephfs cluster in production for about a 2 years at Laureate Institute for Brain Research. Before that we had a good 6-8 month planning and evaluation phase. I'm running with active/standby dedicated mds servers, 3x dedicated mons, and 12 osd nodes with 24 disks in each server. Every group of 12 disks have journals mapped to 1x Intel P3700. Each osd node has dual 40gbps ethernet lagged with lacp. In our evaluation we did find that the rumors are true. Your cpu choice will influence performance.
Here's why my answer is "it depends." If you expect to get the same complete feature set as you do with isilon, scale-io, gluster, or other more established scaleout systems, it is not production ready. But, in terms of stability, it is. Over the course of the past 2 years I've triggered 1 mds bug that put my filesystem into read only mode. That bug was patched in 8 hours thanks to this community. Also that bug was trigger by a stupid mistake on my part that the application did not validate before the action was performed. If you have a couple of people with a strong background in Linux, networking, and architecture, I'd say Ceph may be a good fit for you. If not, maybe not. On Jul 16, 2017 9:59 PM, "许雪寒" <xuxue...@360.cn> wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > > > We intend to use cephfs of Jewel version, however, we don’t know its > status. Is it production ready in Jewel? Does it still have lots of bugs? > Is it a major effort of the current ceph development? And who are using > cephfs now? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
