I'm a lurker here and don't know much about ceph, but:
If fdatasync hardly makes a difference, then either it's not being honoured
(which would be a major problem), or there's something else that is a
bottleneck in your test (more likely).
It's not uncommon for a poor choice of block size (bs)
Hi,
I'm pretty new to Ceph - pardon the newbie question. I've done a bit
of reading and searching, but I haven't seen an answer to this yet.
Is anyone using ceph to power a filesystem shared among a network of
Linux, Windows and Mac clients? How have you set it up? Is there a
mature Windows
Robert,
Thanks, this is really interesting. Do you also have any details on how a
solution like this performs? I've been reading a thread about samba/cephfs
performance, and the stats aren't great - especially when creating/deleting
many files - but being a rookie, I'm not 100% clear on the
Hi,
How is the commercial support for Ceph? More specifically, I was recently
pointed in the direction of the very interesting combination of CephFS,
Samba and ctdb. Is anyone familiar with companies that provide commercial
support for in-house solutions like this?
Regards, Ketil
I think there may be something wrong with the apt repository for
bionic, actually. Compare the packages available for Xenial:
https://download.ceph.com/debian-luminous/dists/xenial/main/binary-amd64/Packages
to the ones available for Bionic:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 01:15 Gregory Farnum wrote:
> In general, no, this is not an expected behavior.
>
For clarification:
I assume you are responding to Andrew's last question "Is this expected
behavior...?" (quoted below).
When I first read through, it looked like your mail was a response to
