From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Nelson Subject: Re: radosgw authentication problems Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:30:31 -0500 Message-ID: <4FD53C27.80809@inktank.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:63443 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233Ab2FKAau (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:30:50 -0400 Received: by yhmm54 with SMTP id m54so2176799yhm.19 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:30:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tommi Virtanen Cc: John Axel Eriksson , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 06/07/2012 02:44 PM, Tommi Virtanen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM, John Axel Eriksson wrote: >> Do you recommend btrfs or perhaps xfs for osds etc? > > Right now I think the preference order is xfs btrfs ext4, but we keep > seeing performance& reliability issues fairly evenly these days. > Btrfs apparently still has a tendency to get slower as the filesystem > ages. > > Mark, feel free to correct me here ;) I think Tommi's got it right. So far what we've seen is that XFS is slower on a fresh file system but over time ends up being faster for small IO and about on-par for large IO. We just started testing EXT4 again now that we have leveldb in place. I'm a little concerned about data integrity after ext4 failed on some benchmark runs, but on the upside performance looks pretty good so far. We'll see how well it ages vs xfs/btrfs in the coming weeks. Mark