-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Brendan Moloney
Sent: 23 March 2015 21:02
To: Noah Mehl
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
This would be in addition
I have been looking at the options for SSD caching for a bit now. Here is my
take on the current options:
1) bcache - Seems to have lots of reliability issues mentioned on mailing list
with little sign of improvement.
2) flashcache - Seems to be no longer (or minimally?) developed/maintained,
@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
This would be in addition to having the journal on SSD. The journal
doesn't
help at all with small random reads and has a fairly limited ability to
coalesce
writes.
In my case, the SSDs we are using for journals
We deployed with just putting the journal on an SSD directly, why would this
not work for you? Just wondering really :)
Thanks!
~Noah
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Brendan Moloney molo...@ohsu.edu wrote:
I have been looking at the options for SSD caching for a bit now. Here is my
take on
get a little more out
of them.
-Brendan
From: Noah Mehl [noahm...@combinedpublic.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:45 PM
To: Brendan Moloney
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
We deployed
@lists.ceph.commailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
This would be in addition to having the journal on SSD. The journal
doesn't
help at all with small random reads and has a fairly limited ability to
coalesce
writes.
In my case, the SSDs we
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
We tested bcache and abandoned it for two reasons.
1. Didn't give us any better performance than journals on SSD.
2. We had lots of corruption of the OSDs and were rebuilding them
frequently.
Since removing them, the OSDs
Hi,
On 03/19/2015 10:41 PM, Nick Fisk wrote:
I'm looking at trialling OSD's with a small flashcache device over them to
hopefully reduce the impact of metadata updates when doing small block io.
Inspiration from here:-
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/12083
One
, Nick Fisk n...@fisk.me.uk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Burkhard Linke
Sent: 20 March 2015 09:09
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
Hi
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
Burkhard Linke
Sent: 20 March 2015 09:09
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD + Flashcache + udev + Partition uuid
Hi,
On 03/19/2015 10:41 PM, Nick Fisk wrote
I'm looking at trialling OSD's with a small flashcache device over them to
hopefully reduce the impact of metadata updates when doing small block io.
Inspiration from here:-
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/12083
One thing I suspect will happen, is that when the OSD
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Nick Fisk n...@fisk.me.uk wrote:
I'm looking at trialling OSD's with a small flashcache device over them to
hopefully reduce the impact of metadata updates when doing small block io.
Inspiration from here:-
12 matches
Mail list logo
