I'v tested it on my home cluster: 8 OSDs (4 nodes by 2x4TB OSDs with Celeron J1900 and 8GB RAM) + 4 cache tier OSDs (2 nodes by 2x250GB SSD OSDs with Atom D2500 and 4GB RAM). HDD OSDs worked v-v-very slow. And SSD OSDs sometimes stopped working because btrfs couldn't rebalance quickly enough and overfilled its SSDs (100% used space). To return them back to life, I had to perform complicated procedure of freeing some space and rebalancing btrfs tree. Maybe real production hardware hasn't such a problems with btrfs, but I don't think that production cluster stability must depend on its hardware performance.
пт, 7 авг. 2015 г. в 23:05, Ben Hines <[email protected]>: > Howdy, > > The Ceph docs still say btrfs is 'experimental' in one section, but > say it's the long term ideal for ceph in the later section. Is this > still accurate with Hammer? Is it mature enough on centos 7.1 for > production use? > > (kernel is 3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64 ) > > thanks- > > -Ben > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
