I too find Ceph fuse more stable.
However, you really should do your tests with a much more recent
kernel ! 3.10 is old.
I think there is Ceph improvements in every kernel version since a long
time.
--
Thomas Lemarchand
Cloud Solutions SAS - Responsable des systèmes d'information
On jeu.,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Lindsay Mathieson
lindsay.mathie...@gmail.com wrote:
I'be been experimenting with CephFS for funning KVM images (proxmox).
cephfs fuse version - 0.87
cephfs kernel module - kernel version 3.10
Part of my testing involves running a Windows 7 VM up and
Hi Lindsay,
have you tried the different cache-options (no cache, write through,
...) which proxmox offer, for the drive?
Udo
On 18.12.2014 05:52, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
I'be been experimenting with CephFS for funning KVM images (proxmox).
cephfs fuse version - 0.87
cephfs kernel module
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:41:21 PM Udo Lembke wrote:
have you tried the different cache-options (no cache, write through,
...) which proxmox offer, for the drive?
I tried with writeback and it didn't corrupt.
--
Lindsay
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:23:42 AM Gregory Farnum wrote:
Do you have any information about *how* the drive is corrupted; what
part Win7 is unhappy with?
Failure to find the boot sector I think, I'll run it again and take a screen
shot.
I don't know how Proxmox configures it, but
I assume
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Lindsay Mathieson
lindsay.mathie...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how Proxmox configures it, but
I assume you're storing the disk images as single files on the FS?
its a single KVM QCOW2 file.
Like the cache mode, the image format might be an interesting thing
I'be been experimenting with CephFS for funning KVM images (proxmox).
cephfs fuse version - 0.87
cephfs kernel module - kernel version 3.10
Part of my testing involves running a Windows 7 VM up and running
CrystalDiskMark to check the I/O in the VM. Its surprisingly good with
both the fuse and
