Yes, I realized that, I updated it to 3. On 10/7/2017 8:41 PM, Sinan Polat wrote: > You are talking about the min_size, which should be 2 according to > your text. > > Please be aware, the min_size in your CRUSH is _not_ the replica size. > The replica size is set with your pools. > > Op 7 okt. 2017 om 19:39 heeft Peter Linder > <peter.lin...@fiberdirekt.se <mailto:peter.lin...@fiberdirekt.se>> het > volgende geschreven: > >> On 10/7/2017 7:36 PM, Дробышевский, Владимир wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> 2017-10-07 19:12 GMT+05:00 Peter Linder <peter.lin...@fiberdirekt.se >>> <mailto:peter.lin...@fiberdirekt.se>>: >>> >>> The idea is to select an nvme osd, and >>> then select the rest from hdd osds in different datacenters (see >>> crush >>> map below for hierarchy). >>> >>> It's a little bit aside of the question, but why do you want to mix >>> SSDs and HDDs in the same pool? Do you have read-intensive workload >>> and going to use primary-affinity to get all reads from nvme? >>> >>> >> Yes, this is pretty much the idea, getting the performance from NVMe >> reads, while still maintaining triple redundancy and a reasonable cost. >> >> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Vladimir >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto: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
