[ceph-users] Re: XFS block size on RBD / EC vs space amplification

Hello, thanxs, I've seen that. But is it the only solution, do I have alternatives with my use case, forcing using big blocks client side ? I've said in XFS (4k bllock size), but perhaps straight in krbd, as it seems the block device is shown as a drive with 512B sectors. But I don't really know how to interpret that : PHY-SEC MIN-IO OPT-IO 512 65536 65536 Le 2021-02-03 09:16, Konstantin Shalygin a écrit : > Actually, with last Igor patches default min alloc size for hdd is 4K > > > > k > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 2 Feb 2021, at 13:12, Gilles Mocellin >> <gilles.mocellin(a)nuagelibre.org> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> As we know, with 64k for bluestore_min_alloc_size_hdd (I'm only using >> HDDs), >> in certain conditions, especially with erasure coding, >> there's a leak of space while writing objects smaller than 64k x k >> (EC:k+m). >> >> Every object is divided in k elements, written on different OSD. >> >> My main use case is big (40TB) RBD images mounted as XFS filesystems >> on Linux servers, >> exposed to our backup software. >> So, it's mainly big files. >> >> My though, but I'd like some other point of view, is that I could deal >> with the amplification by using bigger block sizes on my XFS >> filesystems. >> Instead of reducing bluestore_min_alloc_size_hdd on all OSDs. >> >> What do you think ? >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io