On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Tommi Virtanen <tv@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Vladimir Bashkirtsev > <vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Look like that osd.0 performs with low latency but osd.1 latency is way > > too > > high and on average it appears as 200ms. osd is backed by btrfs over > > LVM2. > > May be issue lie in backing fs selection? All four osds running similar > > Our typical experience with btrfs right now seems to be that it works > fast when the filesystem is fresh, but as it ages, it starts to have > higher and higher delays on syncing writes. This does not seem to be > completely deterministic, that is, if you run many btrfs'es, the > symptoms start to appear at different times on different instances. Is Inktank seeing the slowdown on btrfs volumes with large metadata (32k / 64k) node/leaf sizes as well, or only on default (4k) sizes? Vladmir, What node/leaf size are you using on your btrfs volume? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
