On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 05:34:04 PM Eneko Lacunza wrote: > > Overall, I seemed to get similar i/o to what I was getting with > > gluster, when I implemented a SSD cache for it (EXT4 with SSD > > Journal). However ceph seemed to cope better with high loads, with one > > of my stress tests - starting 7 vm's simultaneously, gluster seemed to > > fail, with some of the VM's reporting I/O errors and crashing. > > > > Whereas with ceph, they were very slow but all started normally. > > > > Thanks for sharing, I haven't used glusterfs but knowing about those I/O > errors is interesting.
More feedback - after test ceph a lot and feedback from the ceph user list I concluded that my use cases were not a good fit to ceph. To small basically, only two osd's, which impacted performance and complicated to manage. I revisited gluster, this time formatted the filesystem per recommendations (difficult to find). This seemed to resolved the I/O problems, haven't been able to recreate them no matter what the load. -- Lindsay
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
