On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry it was a bit poorly defined.
>
> I'm talking about thinks like this:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/551179/
>
> Stefan
>
Not sure if Ceph can have any advantage of it, as for common Ceph
operations looks like they ar
Hi,
sorry it was a bit poorly defined.
I'm talking about thinks like this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/551179/
Stefan
Am 25.05.2014 11:11, schrieb Andrey Korolyov:
> Hi,
>
> which one you are talking about? -rt patchset has absolutely no
> difference for Ceph, though very specific workload (which
Hi,
which one you are talking about? -rt patchset has absolutely no
difference for Ceph, though very specific workload (which I was unable
to imagine at a time) can benefit of it a little. Windriver variant
means much more, because it rt`ing virtualized envs - in combination
with storage nodes you
I very briefly tried kernel-rt from RH MRG, and it didn't make any noticeable
difference. Though I didn't spend any time tuning things.
Cheers, Dan
On May 25, 2014 11:04 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
wrote:
Hi,
has anybody ever tried to use a low latency kernel for ceph? Does it make any
d
Hi,
has anybody ever tried to use a low latency kernel for ceph? Does it make any
differences?
Greets,
Stefan
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
