5 ms·
Longhorn is a poorly implemented distributed storage layer. You are better off with Ceph.
by positisop 1y ago
Longhorn is a poorly implemented distributed storage layer. You are better off with Ceph.
- yupyupyups 1y agoI've heard Ceph is expensive to run. But maybe that's not true?
- jauntywundrkind 1y agoI'm only just wading in, after years of intent. I don't feel like Ceph is particularly demanding. It does want a decent amount of ram. 1GB each for monitor, manager, and metadata, up to 16GB total for larger clusters, according to docs. But then each disk's OSD defaults to 4gb, which can add up fast!! And some users can use more. 10Gbe is recommended and more is better here but that seems not unique to ceph: syncing storage will want bandwidth. https://docs.ceph.com/en/octopus/start/hardware-recommendations/ https://docs.ceph.com/en/octopus/start/hardware-recommendati...
- westurner 1y agoThis from 2023 says: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/ceph-cluster-single-machine https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/ceph-cluster-single-machine : > All you need is a machine, virtual or physical, with two CPU cores, 4GB RAM, and at least two or three disks (plus one disk for the operating system).
- xyzzy123 1y agoFor me it was the ram for the OSDs, 1GB per 1TB but ideally more for SSDs...
- keeperofdakeys 1y agoCeph overheads aren't that large for a small cluster, but they grow as you add more hosts, drives, and more storage. Probably the main gotcha is that you're (ideally) writing your data three times on different machines, which is going to lead to a large overhead compared with local storage. Most resource requirements for Ceph assume you're going for a decently sized cluster, not something homelab sized.
- master_crab 1y agoIt’s going to do a good job saturating your lan maintaining quorum on the data.
- willbeddow 1y agohave not used longhorn, but we are currently in the process of migrating off of ceph after an extremely painful relationship with it. Ceph has fundamental design flaws (like the way it handles subtree pinning) that, IMO, make more modern distributed filesystems very useful. SeaweedFS is also cool, and for high performance use cases, weka is expensive but good.
- q3k 1y agoThat sounds more like a CephFS issue than a Ceph issue. (a lot of us distrust distributed 'POSIX-like' filesystems for good reasons)
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoAre there any distributed POSIX filesystems which don’t suck? I think part of the issue is that POSIX compliant filesystem just doesn’t scale, and you are just seeing that?
- willbeddow 1y agoweka seems to Just Work from our tests so far, even under pretty extreme load with hundreds of mounts on different machines, lots of small files, etc... Unfortunately it's ungodly expensive.
- scheme271 1y agoI think Lustre works fairly well. At the very least, it's used in a lot of HPC centers to handle large filesystems that get hammered by lots of nodes concurrently. It's open source so nominally free although getting a support contract from specialized consulting firm might be pricey.
- latchkey 1y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/1nd078i/scaleup_and_scaleout_solved_before_mi400x_thanks/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/1nd078i/scaleup_... You're going to have to open the image and then go to the third image. I thought it was interesting that OCI pegs Lustre at 8Gb/s and their high performance FS at much higher than that... 20-80.
- hulitu 1y agoI thought it is a Windows version. Wait, it is a Windows version. /s