> ________________________________________
> From: Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 10:46 PM
> To: openstack-operators
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][ceph][nova] How do   
>   you handle Nova on Ceph?
> Excerpts from Adam Kijak's message of 2016-10-12 12:23:41 +0000:
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Xav Paice <xavpa...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:41 PM
> > > To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][ceph][nova] How 
> > > do you handle Nova on Ceph?
> > >
> > > I'm really keen to hear more about those limitations.
> >
> > Basically it's all related to the failure domain ("blast radius") and risk 
> > management.
> > Bigger Ceph cluster means more users.
> Are these risks well documented? Since Ceph is specifically designed
> _not_ to have the kind of large blast radius that one might see with
> say, a centralized SAN, I'm curious to hear what events trigger
> cluster-wide blasts.

In theory yes, Ceph is desgined to be fault tolerant,
but from our experience it's not always like that.
I think it's not well documented, but I know this case:

> > Growing the Ceph cluster temporary slows it down, so many users will be 
> > affected.
> One might say that a Ceph cluster that can't be grown without the users
> noticing is an over-subscribed Ceph cluster. My understanding is that
> one is always advised to provision a certain amount of cluster capacity
> for growing and replicating to replaced drives.

I agree that provisioning a fixed size Cluster would solve some problems but 
planning the capacity is not always easy.
Predicting the size and making it cost effective (empty big Ceph cluster costs 
a lot on the beginning) is quite difficult.
Also adding a new Ceph cluster will be always more transparent to users than 
manipulating existing one especially when growing pool PGs)

OpenStack-operators mailing list

Reply via email to