From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shain Miley Subject: Re: cephfs survey results Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 18:47:19 -0500 Message-ID: <54596587.1080000@npr.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org Sender: "ceph-users" To: Sage Weil Cc: Ceph Development , ceph-users-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org +1 for fsck and snapshots, being able to have snapshot backups and protect against accidental deletion, etc is something we are really looking forward to. Thanks, Shain On 11/04/2014 04:02 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Blair Bethwaite wrote: >> On 4 November 2014 01:50, Sage Weil 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... > > sage > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Shain Miley | Manager of Systems and Infrastructure, Digital Media | smiley-VrEXfa0MiHk@public.gmane.org | 202.513.3649