On 1/16/19 8:08 PM, Anthony Verevkin wrote:
> I would definitely see huge value in going to 3 MONs here (and btw 2 on-site
> MGR and 2 on-site MDS)
> However 350Kbps is quite low and MONs may be latency sensitive, so I suggest
> you do heavy QoS if you want to use that link for ANYTHING else.
>
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Anthony Verevkin wrote:
>
> I would definitely see huge value in going to 3 MONs here (and btw 2 on-site
> MGR and 2 on-site MDS)
> However 350Kbps is quite low and MONs may be latency sensitive, so I suggest
> you do heavy QoS if you want to use that link for AN
I would definitely see huge value in going to 3 MONs here (and btw 2 on-site
MGR and 2 on-site MDS)
However 350Kbps is quite low and MONs may be latency sensitive, so I suggest
you do heavy QoS if you want to use that link for ANYTHING else.
If you do so, make sure your clients are only listing t
Ah! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks!!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 12:30, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:07 PM Brian Topping
>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a simple two-node Ceph cluster that I’m comfortable with the care and
>> feeding of. Both nodes
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:07 PM Brian Topping
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a simple two-node Ceph cluster that I’m comfortable with the care
> and feeding of. Both nodes are in a single rack and captured in the
> attached dump, it has two nodes, only one mon, all pools size 2. Due to
> physical l
