I need exactly what ceph is for a whole lot of work, that work just
doesn't represent a large fraction of the total local traffic. Ceph is
the right choice. Plainly ceph has tremendous support for replication
within a chassis, among chassis and among racks. I just need
intra-chassis traffic to not hit the net much. Seems not such an
unreasonable thing given the intra-chassis crush rules and all. After
all.. ceph's name wasn't chosen for where it can't go....
On 6/29/20 1:57 PM, Marc Roos wrote:
> I wonder if you should not have chosen a different product? Ceph is
> meant to distribute data across nodes, racks, data centers etc. For a
> nail use a hammer, for a screw use a screw driver.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To: ceph-users(a)ceph.io
> Subject: *****SPAM***** [ceph-users] layout help: need chassis local io
> to minimize net links
>
> Hi
>
> I have a few servers each with 6 or more disks, with a storage workload
> that's around 80% done entirely within each server. From a
> work-to-be-done perspective there's no need for 80% of the load to
> traverse network interfaces, the rest needs what ceph is all about. So
> I cooked up a set of crush maps and pools, one map/pool for each server
> and one map/pool for the whole. Skipping the long story, the
> performance remains network link speed bound and has got to change.
> "Chassis local" io is too slow. I even tried putting a mon within each
> server. I'd like to avoid having to revert to some other HA
> filesystem per server with ceph at the chassis layer if I can help
> it.
>
> Any notions that would allow 'chassis local' rbd traffic to avoid or
> mostly avoid leaving the box?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
> email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>
>