On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:38:25 +0800 Nick Tan wrote: > > > Thanks for the advice Christian. I think I'm leaning more towards the > > 'traditional' storage server with 12 disks - as you say they give a lot > > more flexibility with the performance tuning/network options etc. > > > > The cache pool is an interesting idea but as you say it can get quite > > expensive for the capacities we're looking at. I'm interested in how > > bluestore performs without a flash/SSD WAL/DB. In my small scale testing > > it seems much better than filestore so I was planning on building > something > > without any flash/SSD. There's always the option of adding it later if > > required. > > > Given the lack (for large writes) of double writes with Bluestore that's > to be expected. > > Since you're looking mostly at largish, sequential writes and reads, a > pure HDDs cluster may be feasible. > > > I have a final question. Assume I'll have 96 OSD's of 10TB each and I use erasure coding with k=5 and m=3 with the failure domain of host. It's my understanding that with erasure coding and host failure domains, the minimum number of hosts required is equal to k+m. Is this correct? So, if I use 8 hosts with 12 OSDs each this means I can lose any 3 OSD's but can I lose a host, assuming there's enough free space in the pool to accomodate the missing 12 OSD's? Or will the cluster block at this point because there's only 7 hosts which is less than k+m? If I use 48 hosts with 2 OSDs each then I can lose up to any 3 OSD's and the cluster can recover. And I could lose 1 host at a time assuming the recovery completes before the next host is lost (until there's 7 hosts left or there's not enough free space in the pool). Is this a correct assessment? Thanks, Nick
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
