On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:40 AM Jake Grimmett <j...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I'd be interested to hear more from Greg about why cache pools are best > avoided... > While performance has improved over many releases, cache pools still don't do well on most workloads that most people use them for. As a result we've moved away from their current implementation; we continue to run their tests and don't merge code which fails them, but bugs which pop up in the community or are intermittent get a lot less attention than other areas of RADOS do. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:32 AM Oliver Schulz <oliver.sch...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > But you could also do workaround like letting it choose (K+M)/2 racks > > and putting two shards in each rack. > > I probably have this wrong - wouldn't it reduce durability > to put two shards in one failure domain? > Oh yes, you are more susceptible to top-of-rack switch failures in this case or whatever. It's just one option — many people are less concerned about their switches than their hard drives, especially since two lost switches are an accessibility but not a durability issue. -Greg
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
