I've never used nbd-rbd, I would use rbd-fuse. It's version should match your cluster's running version as it's a package compiled with each ceph release.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:58 PM Massimiliano Cuttini <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, > > so if I understand correctly your opinion: if you cannot choiche the > kernel then you'll sacrifice immediatly the kernel-rbd. > I was at the same opinion but i'm still harvesting opinion. > > Can you tell me if by using nbd-rbd I'm not losing any features? > I just cannot understand if nbd is a sort of "virtualized driver" that use > ceph under a less-featured-standardized driver or if kernel and nbd differ > only (assuming it's compared with last kernel) just for speed reason. > > > Thanks Turner for any further info! > Max > > > > Il 23/06/2017 18:21, David Turner ha scritto: > > If you have no control over what kernel the clients are going to use, then > I wouldn't even consider using the kernel driver for the clients. For me, > I would do anything to maintain the ability to use the object map which > would require the 4.9 kernel to use with the kernel driver. Because of > this and similar improvements to ceph that the kernel is requiring newer > and newer versions to utilize, I've become a strong proponent of utilizing > the fuse, rgw, and librados/librbd client options to keep my clients in > feature parity with my cluster's ceph version. > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50 AM Massimiliano Cuttini <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Not all server are real centOS servers. >> Some of them are dedicated distribution locked at 7.2 with locked kernel >> fixed at 3.10. >> Which as far as I can understand need CRUSH_TUNABLES2 and not even 3! >> >> >> http://cephnotes.ksperis.com/blog/2014/01/21/feature-set-mismatch-error-on-ceph-kernel-client >> >> So what are you suggest to sacrifice? >> Kernel-RBD or CRUSH_TUNABLE > 2? >> >> >> >> Il 23/06/2017 14:51, Jason Dillaman ha scritto: >> > CentOS 7.3's krbd supports Jewel tunables (CRUSH_TUNABLES5) and does >> > not support NBD since that driver is disabled out-of-the-box. As an >> > alternative for NBD, the goal is to also offer LIO/TCMU starting with >> > Luminous and the next point release of CentOS (or a vanilla >=4.12-ish >> > kernel). >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Massimiliano Cuttini < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> running all server and clients a centOS release with a kernel 3.10.* >> I'm >> >> facing this choiche: >> >> >> >> sacrifice TUNABLES and downgrade all the cluster to >> >> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES3 (which should be the right profile for >> jewel on >> >> old kernel 3.10) >> >> sacrifice KERNEL RBD and map Ceph by NBD >> >> >> >> Which one should I sacrifice? And why? >> >> Let me know your througth, pro & cons. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Max >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
