From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Niemayer Subject: Using other filesystems than btrfs with Ceph Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:23:15 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52374 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756376Ab0FKOZH (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:25:07 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ON5AN-00024I-UP for ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:25:03 +0200 Received: from barriere.frankfurter-softwarefabrik.de ([217.11.197.1]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:25:03 +0200 Received: from niemayer by barriere.frankfurter-softwarefabrik.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:25:03 +0200 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Hi, the release notes of 0.20 state "btrfs no longer strictly required". Is there some documentation/discussion on the pro's and con's of using other filesystems with Ceph? Also, the documentation in the Wiki does not mention what would need to be configured differently if another filesystem was to be used - what would I have to use instead of "btrfs devs = /dev/sdy"? The reason why I ask is that the application I would like to test-run on a minimal Ceph-cluster runs much faster when using XFS than btrfs. Also, XFS is not quite as young&experimental as btrfs, so if there is no specific benefit from using btrfs, it would be a reasonable choice to use the much longer matured XFS for now. Any thoughts on this? Regards, Peter Niemayer