Re: cephfs survey results

[Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood-6STWZtX7tXAqAMOr+u8IRA@public.gmane.org>]

On 04/11/14 22:02, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote:
>> On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil <sage-BnTBU8nroG7k1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> In the Ceph session at the OpenStack summit someone asked what the CephFS
>>> survey results looked like.
>>
>> Thanks Sage, that was me!
>>
>>>   Here's the link:
>>>
>>>          https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-L5JV7WXL/
>>>
>>> In short, people want
>>>
>>> fsck
>>> multimds
>>> snapshots
>>> quotas
>>
>> TBH I'm a bit surprised by a couple of these and hope maybe you guys
>> will apply a certain amount of filtering on this...
>>
>> fsck and quotas were there for me, but multimds and snapshots are what
>> I'd consider "icing" features - they're nice to have but not on the
>> critical path to using cephfs instead of e.g. nfs in a production
>> setting. I'd have thought stuff like small file performance and
>> gateway support was much more relevant to uptake and
>> positive/pain-free UX. Interested to hear others rationale here.
>
> Yeah, I agree, and am taking the results with a grain of salt.  I
> think the results are heavily influenced by the order they were
> originally listed (I whish surveymonkey would randomize is for each
> person or something).
>
> fsck is a clear #1.  Everybody wants multimds, but I think very few
> actually need it at this point.  We'll be merging a soft quota patch
> shortly, and things like performance (adding the inline data support to
> the kernel client, for instance) will probably compete with getting
> snapshots working (as part of a larger subvolume infrastructure).  That's
> my guess at least; for now, we're really focused on fsck and hard
> usability edges and haven't set priorities beyond that.
>
> We're definitely interested in hearing feedback on this strategy, and on
> peoples' experiences with giant so far...
>

Heh, not necessarily - I put multi mds in there, as we want the cephfs 
part to be of similar to the rest of ceph in its availability.

Maybe its because we are looking at plugging it in with an Openstack 
setup and for that you want everything to 'just look after itself'. If 
on the other hand we were wanting merely an nfs replacement, then sure 
multi mds not so important there.

regards

Mark