Thank you Zheng. Does that mean that, when using such feature, our data integrity relies now on both data pools' integrity/availability?
We currently use such feature in production for dovecot's index files, so we could store this directory on a pool of SSDs only. The main data pool is made of HDDs and stores the email files themselves. There ain't too many files created, it's just a few files per email user, and basically one directory per user's mailbox. Each mailbox has a index file that is updated upon every new email received or moved, deleted, read, etc. I think in this scenario the overhead may be acceptable for us. Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:51 AM Yan, Zheng <uker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:34 AM Webert de Souza Lima > <webert.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > hello, > > > > is there any performance impact on cephfs for using file layouts to bind > a specific directory in cephfs to a given pool? Of course, such pool is not > the default data pool for this cephfs. > > > > For each file, no matter which pool file data are stored, mds alway > create an object in the default data pool. The object in default data > pool is used for storing backtrace. So files stored in non-default > pool have extra overhead on file creation. For large file, the > overhead can be neglect. But for lots of small files, the overhead may > affect performance. > > > > Regards, > > > > Webert Lima > > DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia > > Belo Horizonte - Brasil > > IRC NICK - WebertRLZ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
