From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner GmbH Subject: Re: Deprecating ext4 support Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: <570C9D03.6020701@speedpartner.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 , ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ceph-users-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org, ceph-maintainers-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org, ceph-announce-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org Hi, Am 11.04.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Sage Weil: > ext4 has never been recommended, but we did test it. After Jewel is out, > we would like explicitly recommend *against* ext4 and stop testing it. Hmmm. We're currently migrating away from xfs as we had some strange performance-issues which were resolved / got better by switching to ext4. We think this is related to our high number of objects (4358 Mobjects according to ceph -s). > Recently we discovered an issue with the long object name handling > that is not fixable without rewriting a significant chunk of > FileStores filename handling. (There is a limit in the amount of > xattr data ext4 can store in the inode, which causes problems in > LFNIndex.) We're only using cephfs so we shouldn't be affected by your discovered bug, right? -- Kind regards Michael