[ceph-users] Re: EC profiles where m>k (EC 8+12)

2023-03-27 Thread Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member
Hi Fabien, we have also used it several times for 2 DC setups. However, we always try to use as few chunks as possible, as it is very inefficient when storing small files (min alloc size) and it can also lead to quite some problems with backfill and recovery in large ceph clusters. Joachim

[ceph-users] Re: EC profiles where m>k (EC 8+12)

2023-03-24 Thread Anthony D'Atri
A custom CRUSH rule can have two steps to enforce that. > On Mar 24, 2023, at 11:04, Danny Webb wrote: > > The question I have regarding this setup is, how can you guarantee that the > 12 m chunks will be located evenly across the two rooms. What would happen > if by chance all 12 chunks were

[ceph-users] Re: EC profiles where m>k (EC 8+12)

2023-03-24 Thread Danny Webb
The question I have regarding this setup is, how can you guarantee that the 12 m chunks will be located evenly across the two rooms. What would happen if by chance all 12 chunks were in room B? Usually you use failure domains to make sure of the distribution of chunks across domains, but you c

[ceph-users] Re: EC profiles where m>k (EC 8+12)

2023-03-24 Thread Fabien Sirjean
Hi, thanks for your reply! Stretch mode is obviously useful with small pools, but with its size of 4 this is a 25% efficiency and we can't afford it (buying 16 PiB raw for 4 PiB net, it's quite hard to justify to budget holders...). Good to hear that you used such EC setup in prod, thanks for

[ceph-users] Re: EC profiles where m>k (EC 8+12)

2023-03-24 Thread Eugen Block
Hi, we have multiple customers with such profiles, for example one with k7 m11 for a two-site cluster (in total 20 nodes). The customer is pretty happy with the resiliency because they actually had multiple outages of one DC and everything was still working fine. Although there's also the