Hello,
Finer grained ability to allocate resources to services. (This process gets 2g of ram and 1 cpu)
do you really believe this is a benefit? How can it be a benefit to have crashing or slow OSDs? Sounds cool but doesn't work in most environments I ever had my hands on. We often encounter cluster that fall apart or have a meltdown just because they run out of memory and we use tricks like zram to help them out and recover their clusters. If I now go and do it per container/osd in a finer grained way, it will just blow up even more. -- Martin Verges Managing director Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263 Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx Am Mi., 17. März 2021 um 18:59 Uhr schrieb Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov
:
There are a lot of benefits to containerization that is hard to do without it. Finer grained ability to allocate resources to services. (This process gets 2g of ram and 1 cpu) Security is better where only minimal software is available within the container so on service compromise its harder to escape. Ability to run exactly what was tested / released by upstream. Fewer issues with version mismatches. Especially useful across different distros. Easier to implement orchestration on top which enables some of the advanced features such as easy to allocate iscsi/nfs volumes. Ceph is finally doing so now that it is focusing on containers. And much more.
________________________________________ From: Teoman Onay <tonay@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:38 AM To: Matthew H Cc: Matthew Vernon; ceph-users Subject: [ceph-users] Re: ceph-ansible in Pacific and beyond?
Check twice before you click! This email originated from outside PNNL.
A containerized environment just makes troubleshooting more difficult, getting access and retrieving details on Ceph processes isn't as straightforward as with a non containerized infrastructure. I am still not convinced that containerizing everything brings any benefits except the collocation of services.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:27 PM Matthew H <matthew.heler@hotmail.com> wrote:
There should not be any performance difference between an un-containerized version and a containerized one.
The shift to containers makes sense, as this is the general direction that the industry as a whole is taking. I would suggest giving cephadm a try, it's relatively straight forward and significantly faster for deployments then ceph-ansible is.
________________________________ From: Matthew Vernon <mv3@sanger.ac.uk> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:50 PM To: ceph-users <ceph-users@ceph.io> Subject: [ceph-users] ceph-ansible in Pacific and beyond?
Hi,
I caught up with Sage's talk on what to expect in Pacific (
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtub... ) and there was no mention
of ceph-ansible at all.
Is it going to continue to be supported? We use it (and uncontainerised packages) for all our clusters, so I'd be a bit alarmed if it was going to go away...
Regards,
Matthew
-- The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io