[rhos-list] RHOS and Ceph

Joey McDonald joey at scare.org
Fri Apr 19 17:10:33 UTC 2013


Simply enabling support for it is not the same as supporting it. Ceph is
already supported via the cephfs fuse-based file system. I think the
concepts are similar.

Two things are needed: kernel module for rbd and ceph hooks in kvm. Then,
let the ceph community offer 'support'.

Is this not what was done for gluster before they were acquired? It is
Linux after all... kumbaya.



On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:03:12 +1200
> Steven Ellis <sellis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > One of their key questions is when (note when, not if) will Red Hat be
> > shipping Ceph as part of their Enterprise Supported Open Stack
> > environment. From their perspective RHS isn't a suitable scalable
> > backend for all their Open Stack use cases, in particular high
> > performance I/O block
>
> Okay, since you ask, here's my take, as an engineer.
>
> Firstly, I would be interested in hearing more. If someone made up their
> mind in such terms there's no dissuading them. But if they have a rational
> basis for saying that "high performance I/O block" in Gluster is somehow
> deficient, it would be very interesting to learn the details.
>
> My sense of this is that we're quite unlikely to offer a support
> for Ceph any time soon. First, nobody so far presented a credible case
> for it, as far as I know, and second, we don't have the expertise.
>
> I saw cases like that before, in a sense that customers come to us and
> think they have all the answers and we better do as we're told.
> This is difficult because on the one hand customer is always right,
> but on the other hand we always stand behind our supported product.
> It happened with reiserfs and XFS. But we refused to support reiserfs,
> while we support XFS. The key difference is that reiserfs was junk,
> and XFS is not.
>
> That said, XFS took a very long time to establish -- years. We had to
> hire Dave Cinner to take care of it. Even if the case for Ceph gains
> arguments, it takes time to establish in-house expertise that we can
> offer as a valuable service to customers. Until that time selling
> Ceph would be irresponsible.
>
> The door is certainly open to it. Make a rational argument, be patient,
> and see what comes out.
>
> Note that a mere benchmark for "high performance I/O block" isn't going
> to cut it. Reiser was beating our preferred solution, ext3. But in the
> end we could not recommend a filesystem that ate customer data, and stuck
> with ext3 despite the lower performance. Not saying Ceph is junk at all,
> but you need a better argument against GlusterFS.
>
> -- Pete
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhos-list mailing list
> rhos-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhos-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhos-list/attachments/20130419/0b55b0bc/attachment.htm>


More information about the rhos-list mailing list