Will m=6 cause huge CPU usage? Best,
Feng On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:57 AM Ashley Merrick <singap...@amerrick.co.uk> wrote: > > I may be wrong, but your correct with your m=6 statement. > > Your need atleast K amount of shards available. If you had k=8 and m=2 > equally across 2 rooms (5 each), a faidlure in either room would cause an > outrage. > > With M=6 your atleast getting better disk space availability than 3 > replication. But not sure if you may end up with some form of split brain if > just was a network issue between both sides and each side was still online > and working independently. As both would technically have enough shards to > continue to operate. > > On Fri, 3 May 2019, 11:46 PM Robert Sander, <r.san...@heinlein-support.de> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would be glad if anybody could give me a tip for an erasure code >> profile and an associated crush ruleset. >> >> The cluster spans 2 rooms with each room containing 6 hosts and each >> host has 12 to 16 OSDs. >> >> The failure domain would be the room level, i.e. data should survive if >> one of the rooms has a power loss. >> >> Is that even possible with erasure coding? >> I am only coming up with profiles where m=6, but that seems to be a >> little overkill. >> >> Regards >> -- >> Robert Sander >> Heinlein Support GmbH >> Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin >> >> https://www.heinlein-support.de >> >> Tel: 030 / 405051-43 >> Fax: 030 / 405051-19 >> >> Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg - HRB 93818 B >> Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein - Sitz: Berlin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
