[ceph-users] HW Raid vs. Multiple OSD
oscar.segarra at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 06:47:59 PST 2017
Thanks Mark, Peter,
For clarification, the configuration with RAID5 is having many servers (2
or more) with RAID5 and CEPH on top of it. Ceph will replicate data between
servers. Of course, each server will have just one OSD daemon managing a
It looks functionally is the same using RAID5 + 1 Ceph daemon as 8 CEPH
I appreciate a lot your comments!
2017-11-13 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marc Roos <M.Roos at f1-outsourcing.eu>:
> Keep in mind also if you want to have fail over in the future. We were
> running a 2nd server and were replicating via DRBD the raid arrays.
> Expanding this storage is quite hastle, compared to just adding a few
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oscar Segarra [mailto:oscar.segarra at gmail.com]
> Sent: maandag 13 november 2017 15:26
> To: Peter Maloney
> Cc: ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] HW Raid vs. Multiple OSD
> Hi Peter,
> Thanks a lot for your consideration in terms of storage consumption.
> The other question is considering having one OSDs vs 8 OSDs... 8 OSDs
> will consume more CPU than 1 OSD (RAID5) ?
> As I want to share compute and osd in the same box, resources consumed
> by OSD can be a handicap.
> Thanks a lot.
> 2017-11-13 12:59 GMT+01:00 Peter Maloney
> <peter.maloney at brockmann-consult.de>:
> Once you've replaced an OSD, you'll see it is quite simple... doing
> it for a few is not much more work (you've scripted it, right?). I don't
> see RAID as giving any benefit here at all. It's not tricky...it's
> perfectly normal operation. Just get used to ceph, and it'll be as
> normal as replacing a RAID disk. And for performance degradation, maybe
> it could be better on either... or better on ceph if you don't mind
> setting the rate to the lowest... but when the QoS functionality is
> ready, probably ceph will be much better. Also RAID will cost you more
> for hardware.
> And raid5 is really bad for IOPS. And ceph already replicates, so
> you will have 2 layers of redundancy... and ceph does it cluster wide,
> not just one machine. Using ceph with replication is like all your free
> space as hot spares... you could lose 2 disks on all your machines, and
> it can still run (assuming it had time to recover in between, and enough
> space). And you don't want min_size=1, and if you have 2 layers of
> redundancy, you'll be tempted to do that probably.
> But for some workloads, like RBD, ceph doesn't balance out the
> workload very evenly for a specific client, only many clients at once...
> raid might help solve that, but I don't see it as worth it.
> I would just software RAID1 the OS and mons, and mds, not the OSDs.
> On 11/13/17 12:26, Oscar Segarra wrote:
> I'm designing my infraestructure. I want to provide 8TB (8
> disks x 1TB each) of data per host just for Microsoft Windows 10 VDI. In
> each host I will have storage (ceph osd) and compute (on kvm).
> I'd like to hear your opinion about theese two
> 1.- RAID5 with 8 disks (I will have 7TB but for me it is
> enough) + 1 OSD daemon
> 2.- 8 OSD daemons
> I'm a little bit worried that 8 osd daemons can affect
> performance because all jobs running and scrubbing.
> Another question is the procedure of a replacement of a
> disk. In case of a big RAID, replacement is direct. In case of many
> OSDs, the procedure is a little bit tricky.
> What is your advice?
> Thanks a lot everybody in advance...
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com
> Peter Maloney
> Brockmann Consult
> Max-Planck-Str. 2
> 21502 Geesthacht
> Tel: +49 4152 889 300 <tel:+49%204152%20889300>
> Fax: +49 4152 889 333 <tel:+49%204152%20889333>
> E-mail: peter.maloney at brockmann-consult.de
> <mailto:peter.maloney at brockmann-consult.de>
> Internet: http://www.brockmann-consult.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ceph-users