3 ms·
Yeah I think only distributed fs's like Ceph and Gluster really scale. File systems, even ZFS and Btrfs, don't scale because they don't deal with the fact it's
by cmurf 10y ago
Yeah I think only distributed fs's like Ceph and Gluster really scale. File systems, even ZFS and Btrfs, don't scale because they don't deal with the fact it's not always one or two hard drives dying that'll take out the storage stack. Network card, power supply, motherboard, etc. And unless you have an all SSD array, the recovery times aren't scaling. One dead drive used to take maybe an hour to rebuild and now it can be a day due to capacity growing faster than performance.
- zokier 10y agoIs the performance of Ceph/Gluster comparative to ZFS performance? I would have thought them to be inherently massively slower
- olavgg 10y agoIt is slower, but still probably good enough for many use cases. https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/10/25/measure-ceph-rbd-performance-in-a-quantitative-way-part-i https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/10/25/measure-ce... http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/reference-architectures/120315-analyzing-ceph-cluster-optimize-storage-costs.pdf http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...
- zimbatm 10y agoIsn't the rebuilding argument valid on the machine level as well though? Granted if your blocks are redundant it's possible to copy from multiple sources but rebuilding is still limited to the network speed.
- zzzcpan 10y agoOn a properly designed distributed system disk-replacement costs are spread across all machines and in time, making performance degradation a non-issue.