I had a corruption issue with the FUSE client on Jewel. I use CephFS for a samba share with a light load, and I was using the FUSE client. I had a power flap and didn't realize my UPS batteries had went bad so the MDS servers were cycled a couple times and some how the file system had become corrupted. I moved to the kernel client and after the FUSE experience I put it through horrible things.
I had every client connected start copying over their user profiles, and then I started pulling and restarting MDS servers. I saw very few errors, and only blips in the copy processes. My experience with the kernel client has been very positive and I would say stable. Nothing replaces a solid backup copy of your data if you care about it. I am still currently on Jewel, and my CephFS is daily driven and I can barely notice that difference between it and the past setups I have had. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Дмитрий Глушенок <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately no. Using FUSE was discarded due to poor performance. > > 19 июля 2017 г., в 13:45, Blair Bethwaite <[email protected]> > написал(а): > > Interesting. Any FUSE client data-points? > > On 19 July 2017 at 20:21, Дмитрий Глушенок <[email protected]> wrote: > > RBD (via krbd) was in action at the same time - no problems. > > 19 июля 2017 г., в 12:54, Blair Bethwaite <[email protected]> > написал(а): > > It would be worthwhile repeating the first test (crashing/killing an > OSD host) again with just plain rados clients (e.g. rados bench) > and/or rbd. It's not clear whether your issue is specifically related > to CephFS or actually something else. > > Cheers, > > On 19 July 2017 at 19:32, Дмитрий Глушенок <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I can share negative test results (on Jewel 10.2.6). All tests were > performed while actively writing to CephFS from single client (about 1300 > MB/sec). Cluster consists of 8 nodes, 8 OSD each (2 SSD for journals and > metadata, 6 HDD RAID6 for data), MON/MDS are on dedicated nodes. 2 MDS at > all, active/standby. > - Crashing one node resulted in write hangs for 17 minutes. Repeating the > test resulted in CephFS hangs forever. > - Restarting active MDS resulted in successful failover to standby. Then, > after standby became active and the restarted MDS became standby the new > active was restarted. CephFS hanged for 12 minutes. > > P.S. Planning to repeat the tests again on 10.2.7 or higher > > 19 июля 2017 г., в 6:47, 许雪寒 <[email protected]> написал(а): > > Is there anyone else willing to share some usage information of cephfs? > Could developers tell whether cephfs is a major effort in the whole ceph > development? > > 发件人: 许雪寒 > 发送时间: 2017年7月17日 11:00 > 收件人: [email protected] > 主题: How's cephfs going? > > Hi, everyone. > > We intend to use cephfs of Jewel version, however, we don’t know its > status. > Is it production ready in Jewel? Does it still have lots of bugs? Is it a > major effort of the current ceph development? And who are using cephfs now? > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > -- > Dmitry Glushenok > Jet Infosystems > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > -- > Cheers, > ~Blairo > > > -- > Dmitry Glushenok > Jet Infosystems > > > > > -- > Cheers, > ~Blairo > > > -- > Dmitry Glushenok > Jet Infosystems > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
