From: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Miyamae, Takeshi" <miyamae.takeshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What crush ruleset for a given SHEC configuration ?
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:47:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <555B14A4.5000008@dachary.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <870DE8DBB716524BAE51B2D499EC81E40AAF9098@g01jpexmbyt24>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2121 bytes --]
On 19/05/2015 11:11, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Hi Loic,
>
>> to recover D6 which is in rack 2 it may be necessary to use P2 from rack 1
>
> Because D6 can be recovered from P3 as well, P2 is not necessarily used to recover D6.
> However, when D6 is recovered from P3, D5 which is in rack 1 must be read.
> Therefore, I believe Ceph-LRC is more efficient when network resources is poor such as
> in case of Geo-Replication. SHEC should be used in a single data center that has enough
> network resources.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, it is clear now :-)
Cheers
>
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:39 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛
> Cc: Ceph Development
> Subject: What crush ruleset for a given SHEC configuration ?
>
> Hi Takeshi,
>
> In the context of http://ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/erasure-code-shec/ it would be useful to have a more detailed explanation of why SHEC is more efficient during recovery (in the introduction).
>
> Am I correct to assume that SHEC does not provide a way to control the locality of the chunks ? For instance in the following scenario:
>
> rack 1 has 10 OSDs
> rack 2 has 10 OSDs
>
> a crush ruleset is made to provide 15 OSDs with 7 in the first rack, 8 in the last rack: the first 7 are in rack 1, the last 8 in rack 2. When SHEC is used with such a crush ruleset, it cannot guarantee that the loss of one chunk in rack 2 can always be recovered with chunks from rack 2. When reading at figure 3 of
>
> https://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Hammer/Shingled_Erasure_Code_%28SHEC%29
>
> with D1 to D5, P1 and P2 in rack 1 and D6 to D10, P3, P4, P5 in rack 2, my understanding is that to recover D6 which is in rack 2 it may be necessary to use P2 from rack 1. And to recover D5 which is in rack 1 it may be necessary to use P3 from rack 2.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something ? Thanks in advance for your explanations :-)
>
> Cheers
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-19 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-19 6:38 What crush ruleset for a given SHEC configuration ? Loic Dachary
2015-05-19 9:11 ` Miyamae, Takeshi
2015-05-19 10:47 ` Loic Dachary [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=555B14A4.5000008@dachary.org \
--to=loic@dachary.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miyamae.takeshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.