On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Max Cuttins <m...@phoenixweb.it> wrote:

> Hi Federico,
> Hi Max,
>> On Feb 28, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Max Cuttins <m...@phoenixweb.it> wrote:
>>> This is true, but having something that just works in order to have
>>> minimum compatibility and start to dismiss old disk is something you should
>>> think about.
>>> You'll have ages in order to improve and get better performance. But you
>>> should allow Users to cut-off old solutions as soon as possible while
>>> waiting for a better implementation.
>> I like your thinking, but I wonder why doesn’t a locally-mounted kRBD
>> volume meet this need? It seems easier than iSCSI and I would venture would
>> show twice the performance at least in some cases.
> Simple because it's not possible.
> XenServer is closed. You cannot add RPM (so basically install ceph)
> without hack the distribution by removing the limitation to YUM.
> And this is what we do here: https://github.com/rposudnevskiy/RBDSR

Understood. Thanks Max, I did not realize you were also speaking about Xen,
I thought you meant to find an arbitrary non-virtual disk  replacement
strategy ("start to dismiss old disk").

We do speak to the Xen team every once in a while, but while there is
interest in adding Ceph support on their side, I think we are somewhat down
the list of their priorities.

Thanks -F
ceph-users mailing list

Reply via email to