CephFS vs NFS
f.cuseo
66 Posts
February 27, 2024, 4:50 pmQuote from f.cuseo on February 27, 2024, 4:50 pmHello.
I am planning to use PetaSAN (3 nodes) for storage of an email infrastructure.
It is based on dovecot, and has 3 virtual machines (ubuntu 22.04LTS) for pop3/imap/lmtp; so all the 3 servers need to share the storage.
For every mailbox, there are a large number of files and several folders, and I/O load should be really high; on petaSAN I have 6xSSD (enterprise) drives, and 6xSAS (bigger) drives. I have 2 different rules for HDD and SDD drives, different pools, and different CephFS filesystem.
When email is older than 90 days, will be moved to slower filesystem for archivial purpose.
So, do you think is better to mount CephFS on mailbox servers, or NFS ?
PS: I still have the problem with "mds client failing to responde to cache pressure" also on this cluster and after a single copy of 30Gbyte of datas.
Hello.
I am planning to use PetaSAN (3 nodes) for storage of an email infrastructure.
It is based on dovecot, and has 3 virtual machines (ubuntu 22.04LTS) for pop3/imap/lmtp; so all the 3 servers need to share the storage.
For every mailbox, there are a large number of files and several folders, and I/O load should be really high; on petaSAN I have 6xSSD (enterprise) drives, and 6xSAS (bigger) drives. I have 2 different rules for HDD and SDD drives, different pools, and different CephFS filesystem.
When email is older than 90 days, will be moved to slower filesystem for archivial purpose.
So, do you think is better to mount CephFS on mailbox servers, or NFS ?
PS: I still have the problem with "mds client failing to responde to cache pressure" also on this cluster and after a single copy of 30Gbyte of datas.
CephFS vs NFS
f.cuseo
66 Posts
Quote from f.cuseo on February 27, 2024, 4:50 pmHello.
I am planning to use PetaSAN (3 nodes) for storage of an email infrastructure.
It is based on dovecot, and has 3 virtual machines (ubuntu 22.04LTS) for pop3/imap/lmtp; so all the 3 servers need to share the storage.
For every mailbox, there are a large number of files and several folders, and I/O load should be really high; on petaSAN I have 6xSSD (enterprise) drives, and 6xSAS (bigger) drives. I have 2 different rules for HDD and SDD drives, different pools, and different CephFS filesystem.
When email is older than 90 days, will be moved to slower filesystem for archivial purpose.
So, do you think is better to mount CephFS on mailbox servers, or NFS ?
PS: I still have the problem with "mds client failing to responde to cache pressure" also on this cluster and after a single copy of 30Gbyte of datas.
Hello.
I am planning to use PetaSAN (3 nodes) for storage of an email infrastructure.
It is based on dovecot, and has 3 virtual machines (ubuntu 22.04LTS) for pop3/imap/lmtp; so all the 3 servers need to share the storage.
For every mailbox, there are a large number of files and several folders, and I/O load should be really high; on petaSAN I have 6xSSD (enterprise) drives, and 6xSAS (bigger) drives. I have 2 different rules for HDD and SDD drives, different pools, and different CephFS filesystem.
When email is older than 90 days, will be moved to slower filesystem for archivial purpose.
So, do you think is better to mount CephFS on mailbox servers, or NFS ?
PS: I still have the problem with "mds client failing to responde to cache pressure" also on this cluster and after a single copy of 30Gbyte of datas.