On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Francois Lafont <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, indeed, I have to use routing *or* maybe create 2 monitors > by server like this: > > [mon.node1-public1] > host = ceph-node1 > mon addr = 10.0.1.1 > > [mon.node1-public2] > host = ceph-node1 > mon addr = 10.0.2.1 > > # etc... > > But, in this case, the working directories of mon.node1-public1 > and mon.node1-public2 will be in the same disk (I have no > choice). Is it a problem? Are monitors big consumers of I/O disk? > > Interesting idea. While you will have an even number of monitors, you'll still have an odd number of failure domains. I'm not sure if it'll work though... make sure you test having the leader on both networks. It might cause problems if the leader is on the 10.0.1.0/24 network?
Monitors can be big consumers of disk IO, if there is a lot of cluster activity. Monitors records all of the cluster changes in LevelDB, and send copies to all of the daemons. There have been posts to the ML about people running out of Disk IOps on the monitors, and the problems it causes. The bigger the cluster, the more IOps. As long as you monitor and alert on your monitor disk IOps, I don't think it would be a problem.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
