Hi,
Thinking to have 2:2 so I can tolerate 2 hosts loss, but if I just want to tolerate 1 host
loss, which one better, 3:2 or 4:1?
Istvan Szabo
Senior Infrastructure Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
e: istvan.szabo@agoda.com<mailto:istvan.szabo@agoda.com>
---------------------------------------------------
________________________________
This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright or other legal rules. If you have
received it by mistake please let us know by reply email and delete it from your system.
It is prohibited to copy this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or
unauthorized disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the company's
interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages may be intercepted,
amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
Show replies by date
For performance reasons stay with powers of 2 for k. Any of 2+2 or 4+2 will work with your
set-up and tolerate one (!) host failure with continued RW access and two host failures
with RO (!) access.
To tolerate 2 host failures with RW access, you need m=3, which is probably a bit much
with 6 hosts.
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <Istvan.Szabo(a)agoda.com>
Sent: 10 May 2021 10:35:34
To: ceph-users
Subject: [ceph-users] Which EC-code for 6 servers?
Hi,
Thinking to have 2:2 so I can tolerate 2 hosts loss, but if I just want to tolerate 1 host
loss, which one better, 3:2 or 4:1?
Istvan Szabo
Senior Infrastructure Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
e: istvan.szabo@agoda.com<mailto:istvan.szabo@agoda.com>
---------------------------------------------------
________________________________
This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright or other legal rules. If you have
received it by mistake please let us know by reply email and delete it from your system.
It is prohibited to copy this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or
unauthorized disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the company's
interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages may be intercepted,
amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
Ok, will stay with 2:2 or 3:2 so once 1 host goes down it can go to the other active
host.
Istvan Szabo
Senior Infrastructure Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
e: istvan.szabo@agoda.com<mailto:istvan.szabo@agoda.com>
---------------------------------------------------
On 2021. May 11., at 14:44, Frank Schilder <frans(a)dtu.dk> wrote:
For performance reasons stay with powers of 2 for k. Any of 2+2 or 4+2 will work with
your set-up and tolerate one (!) host failure with continued RW access and two host
failures with RO (!) access.
To tolerate 2 host failures with RW access, you need m=3, which is probably a bit much
with 6 hosts.
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <Istvan.Szabo(a)agoda.com>
Sent: 10 May 2021 10:35:34
To: ceph-users
Subject: [ceph-users] Which EC-code for 6 servers?
Hi,
Thinking to have 2:2 so I can tolerate 2 hosts loss, but if I just want to tolerate 1 host
loss, which one better, 3:2 or 4:1?
Istvan Szabo
Senior Infrastructure Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
e: istvan.szabo@agoda.com<mailto:istvan.szabo@agoda.com>
---------------------------------------------------
________________________________
This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright or other legal rules. If you have
received it by mistake please let us know by reply email and delete it from your system.
It is prohibited to copy this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or
unauthorized disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the company's
interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages may be intercepted,
amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io