Hey John, thanks for you answer. For sure the hardware robustness will be
nice enough. My true concern was actually the two FS ecosystem coexistence.
In fact I realized that we may not use this as well because it may be
represent a high overhead, despite the fact that it's a experiental feature
yet.
On Thu, 10 May 2018 at 15:48 John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:38 PM, João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
> <joaopaulos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > My company is about to rebuild its whole infrastructure, so I was called
> in
> > order to help on the planning. We are essentially an corporate mail
> > provider, so we handle daily lots of clients using dovecot and roundcube
> and
> > in order to do so we want to design a better plant of our cluster. Today,
> > using Jewel, we have a single cephFS for both index and mail from
> dovecot,
> > but we want to split it into an index_FS and a mail_FS to handle the
> > workload a little better, is it profitable nowadays? From my research I
> > realized that we will need data and metadata individual pools for each FS
> > such as a group of MDS for each of then, also.
> >
> > The one thing that really scares me about all of this is: we are
> planning to
> > have four machines at full disposal to handle our MDS instances. We
> started
> > to think if an idea like the one below is valid, can anybody give a hint
> on
> > this? We basically want to handle two MDS instances on each machine (one
> for
> > each FS) and wonder if we'll be able to have them swapping between active
> > and standby simultaneously without any trouble.
> >
> > index_FS: (active={machines 1 and 3}, standby={machines 2 and 4})
> > mail_FS: (active={machines 2 and 4}, standby={machines 1 and 3})
>
> Nothing wrong with that setup, but remember that those servers are
> going to have to be well-resourced enough to run all four at once
> (when a failure occurs), so it might not matter very much exactly
> which servers are running which daemons.
>
> With a filesystem's MDS daemons (i.e. daemons with the same
> standby_for_fscid setting), Ceph will activate whichever daemon comes
> up first, so if it's important to you to have particular daemons
> active then you would need to take care of that at the point you're
> starting them up.
>
> John
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> >
> > João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
> > +55 31 99279-7092
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >
>
--
João Paulo Sacchetto Ribeiro Bastos
+55 31 99279-7092
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
