>>>
>>> <>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Jan Schermer
>>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
>>> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> Subje
h-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
>> Schermer
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
>> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>>
>> Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some inpu
ote:
>
> <
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
> Schermer
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>
> Sorry for reviving an old thread
<mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:32 AM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but could I get some input on this, pretty
please?
ext4 has 256-byte inodes
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Christian Balzer
>>> Sent: 02 July 2015 02:23
>>> To: Ceph Users
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:36:18 + Somnath Ro
lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>> Christian Balzer
>> Sent: 02 July 2015 02:23
>> To: Ceph Users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:36:18 + Somnath Roy wrote:
>>
>>> It is replaced with the fol
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 02 July 2015 02:23
> To: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:36:18 + Somnath Roy wrote:
>
Message-
> From: Christian Balzer [mailto:ch...@gol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:26 PM
> To: Ceph Users
> Cc: Somnath Roy
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:24:13 + Somnath Roy wrote:
>
>
nath
-Original Message-
From: Christian Balzer [mailto:ch...@gol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:26 PM
To: Ceph Users
Cc: Somnath Roy
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] xattrs vs omap
Hello,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:24:13 + Somnath Roy wrote:
> It doesn't mat
Hello,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:24:13 + Somnath Roy wrote:
> It doesn't matter, I think filestore_xattr_use_omap is a 'noop' and not
> used in the Hammer.
>
Then what was this functionality replaced with, esp. considering EXT4
based OSDs?
Chibi
> Thanks & Regards
> Somnath
>
> -Original
It doesn't matter, I think filestore_xattr_use_omap is a 'noop' and not used
in the Hammer.
Thanks & Regards
Somnath
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Adam
Tygart
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:20 AM
To: Ceph Users
Subject: [c
FWIW, there was some discussion in OpenStack Swift and their performance tests
showed 255 is not the best in recent XFS. They decided to use large xattr
boundary size(65535).
https://gist.github.com/smerritt/5e7e650abaa20599ff34
-Original Message-
From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> > We've since merged something
> > that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
> > but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
> > c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
>
> Hi Sage:
>
> You wrote "yet" - should
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Nathan Cutler wrote:
>> We've since merged something
>> that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
>> but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
>> c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
>
> Hi Sage:
>
> You wrote "yet" - sh
> We've since merged something
> that stripes over several small xattrs so that we can keep things inline,
> but it hasn't been backported to hammer yet. See
> c6cdb4081e366f471b372102905a1192910ab2da.
Hi Sage:
You wrote "yet" - should we earmark it for hammer backport?
Nathan
___
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Zhou, Yuan wrote:
> FWIW, there was some discussion in OpenStack Swift and their performance
> tests showed 255 is not the best in recent XFS. They decided to use large
> xattr boundary size(65535).
>
> https://gist.github.com/smerritt/5e7e650abaa20599ff34
If I read this co
Hi Yuan,
Thanks for sharing the link, it is interesting to read. My understanding of the
test results, is that with a fixed size of xattrs, using smaller stripe size
will incur larger latency for read, which kind of makes sense since there are
more k-v pairs, and with the size, it needs to get e
After back-porting Sage's patch to Giant, with radosgw, the xattrs can get
inline. I haven't run extensive testing yet, will update once I have some
performance data to share.
Thanks,
Guang
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:51:44 -0500
> From: mnel...@redhat.com
> To: yguan...@outlook.com; s...@newdr
On 06/16/2015 03:48 PM, GuangYang wrote:
Thanks Sage for the quick response.
It is on Firefly v0.80.4.
While trying to put with *rados* directly, the xattrs can be inline. The
problem comes to light when using radosgw, since we have a bunch of metadata to
keep via xattrs, including:
rgw
Thanks Sage for the quick response.
It is on Firefly v0.80.4.
While trying to put with *rados* directly, the xattrs can be inline. The
problem comes to light when using radosgw, since we have a bunch of metadata to
keep via xattrs, including:
rgw.idtag : 15 bytes
rgw.manifest : 381 byte
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, GuangYang wrote:
> Hi Cephers,
> While looking at disk utilization on OSD, I noticed the disk was constantly
> busy with large number of small writes, further investigation showed that, as
> radosgw uses xattrs to store metadata (e.g. etag, content-type, etc.), which
> made
Guang,
Try to play around with the following conf attributes specially
filestore_max_inline_xattr_size and filestore_max_inline_xattrs
// Use omap for xattrs for attrs over
// filestore_max_inline_xattr_size or
OPTION(filestore_max_inline_xattr_size, OPT_U32, 0) //Override
OPTION(filestore_ma
22 matches
Mail list logo
