If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to bypass a perceived bottleneck. Yes, you can have many rados gateways (RGW) running. You can also bypass RGW and go directly with librados and use your own striping but I would not recommend that unless you really know what you're doing and have time to build and test it. That said, RGW can still give you parity with AWS S3. We run very large clusters and we use RGW and RBD because we also run OpenStack. Our original design had a RGW on every box that had OSDs but we found it not to be very efficient in our use case (it could be the opposite in your use case). We turned down the number of RGWs to 1 for every 3 high density OSD servers. Depending on payload and requests this could be tuned higher or lower. We also found that we needed to bump the Apache config to a higher number of running servers (we are still using the old Apache style - newer threaded/event may not need changing). Still, with the changes we are now going to start testing using civeweb in the latest version of ceph so as to bypass Apache all together.
The only way to get a good distributed spread is to use a good load balancer. We found that our load balancers are our bottlenecks so we are working with our network group on changing those out. Also, depending on what load balancer you use, you may need to change your distribution algorithm to round robin instead of least connections. With our load balancer (rad...) we found least connections was not distributing the load as you would expect which caused the first group of servers to have very high loads as compared to others. Once we changed to round robin (it could be different on your load balancer) we saw a good even spread. We used JMeter on AWS to build a fleet of testing servers that made 2MB byte range requests to the VIP on our load balancer and then tracked latency, RTT, errors, etc for the duration. In addition we monitored the nics on the load balancers and systats on each server. We are very pleased with RGW and Ceph and strongly recommend it. thx On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am designing an infrastructure using Ceph. > The client will fetch data though HTTP. > > I saw the radosgw, that is made for that, it has, however, some weakness > for me : as far as I understood, when a client want to fetch a file, it > connects to the radosgw, which will connect to the right OSD and pipe > data to the client. > > Is there any way to remove such bottleneck (proxyfing all data ?) > > A solution would be to create a radosgw on each OSD-servers, I still > need a way to redirect customers to the right way (to the radosgw that > lives on the correct OSD). > I dig the docs, and even with librados, I could not find this information. > > To conclude with a global overview, my needs: > - few data, many servers, many bandwidth > - each servers are limited by network, not by disk IO > - client's URI are forged (they first download some sort of index, then > the files): a programmable solution can be integrated there > > Thanks for reading > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- Best Regards, Chris Jones <http://www.cloudm2.com> [email protected] (p) 770.655.0770 This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
