What is your use case? That matters the most. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:31 PM David Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
