Den tors 15 aug. 2019 kl 00:16 skrev Anthony D'Atri <a...@dreamsnake.net>:
> Good points in both posts, but I think there’s still some unclarity. > ... > We’ve seen good explanations on the list of why only specific DB sizes, > say 30GB, are actually used _for the DB_. > If the WAL goes along with the DB, shouldn’t we also explicitly determine > an appropriate size N for the WAL, and make the partition (30+N) GB? > If so, how do we derive N? Or is it a constant? > > Filestore was so much simpler, 10GB set+forget for the journal. Not that > I miss XFS, mind you. > But we got a simple handwaving-best-effort-guesstimate that went "WAL 1GB is fine, yes." so there you have an N you can use for the 30+N or 60+N sizings. Can't see how that N needs more science than the filestore N=10G you showed. Not that I think journal=10G was wrong or anything. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
