On 29/10/14 05:43, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
Sorry to keep coming back to this :( but we're adding a 3rd node to
our cluster which brings ceph back into the picture ...
Is there a particular reason that ceph is preferred to glusterfs?
better performance? more fault tolerant?
Ceph provides block storage while Gluster doesn't, but the latest it's
far easier to setup. As block storage, Ceph is faster than Gluster, but
I have all my proxmox virtual environment with gluster running perfectly.
On its day, I relied on Gluster because it was a more mature product
than Ceph, ready for production, but now I'm toying in a second cluster
with Ceph because now it's becoming a mature product as well... both
have pros and cons, and both are good, so I think there isn't a "winner"
between them at the moment.
Also - my third proxmox node is just a lightweight intel nuc for
quorum - it won't be running VM's or contributing storage. Does the
following setup make sense?
Node1: OSD1 + Monitor
Node2: OSD3 + Monitor
Node1: Monitor Only
Node1 & Node2 are connected via Dual Bonded 1GB Ethernet
Node3 Only has 1GB Ethernet
Bonded interfaces on linux are active-backup, so you have a 1Gb
connexion on the storage side. Consider to upgrade to a faster
ethernet/fiberchannel/infiniband.
You will have no problems with your intel nuc as quorum node, I have a
512MB RAM VM with 8GB HDD with debian and proxmox for that purpose.
--
*Angel Docampo
*
*Datalab Tecnologia, s.a.*
Castillejos, 352 - 08025 Barcelona
Tel. 93 476 69 14 - Ext: 706
Mob. 670.299.381
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
