On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:34:47 PM Fabricio Cannini wrote:
> > No no no. I strognly advise against Ceph. It is very sophisticated and
> > fragile with huge and messy code base... Ceph is very unreliable, very
> > slow and difficult to set up. Ceph couldn't care less for data integrity
> > and in loing term data corruption is inevitable. I'm talking from
> > experience. Please stay away from Ceph, it does not worth the effort.
>
> Like I said, I've no experience with ceph. ;)
> For curiosity's sake, when/what version of ceph did you used?
All stable releases made in 2014. And I wasn't just using Ceph but also
maintaining it in Debian and contributing upstream.
The problems I'm talking about are systematic issues unrelated to a
particular version.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.