Why are you selected this specific sizes? Are there any tests/research on it?
Best Regards, Rafał Wądołowski On 24.06.2019 13:05, Konstantin Shalygin wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Have been thinking a bit about rocksdb and EC pools: >> >> Since a RADOS object written to a EC(k+m) pool is split into several >> minor pieces, then the OSD will receive many more smaller objects, >> compared to the amount it would receive in a replicated setup. >> >> This must mean that the rocksdb will also need to handle this more >> entries, and will grow faster. This will have an impact when using >> bluestore for slow HDD with DB on SSD drives, where the faster growing >> rocksdb might result in spillover to slow store - if not taken into >> consideration when designing the disk layout. >> >> Are my thoughts on the right track or am I missing something? >> >> Has somebody done any measurement on rocksdb growth, comparing replica >> vs EC ? > > If you want to be not affected on spillover of block.db - use 3/30/300 > GB partition for your block.db. > > > > k > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
