Hi Greg, On 04/16/2013 02:18 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jim Schutt <jaschut@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> On 04/10/2013 06:39 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> Jim, >>> I took this patch as a base for setting up config options which people >>> can tune manually and have pushed those changes to wip-leveldb-config. >> >> I was out of the office unexpectedly for a few days, >> so I'm just now taking a look. >> >>> Thanks very much for figuring out how to set up the cache et al! >> >> No problem! >> >>> >>> For now I restructured quite a bit of the data ingestion, and I took >>> your defaults for the monitor on the write buffer, block size, and >>> compression, but I left the cache off. These also don't apply to the >>> OSDs at all. In order to enable more experimentation I do pass through >>> the options though: >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_write_buffer_size, OPT_U64, 32*1024*1024) // monitor's >>> leveldb write buffer size >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_cache_size, OPT_U64, 0) // monitor's leveldb cache size >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_block_size, OPT_U64, 4*1024*1024) // monitor's leveldb block size >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_bloom_size, OPT_INT, 0) // monitor's leveldb bloom bits per entry >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_max_open_files, OPT_INT, 0) // monitor's leveldb max open files >>> OPTION(mon_ldb_compression, OPT_BOOL, false) // monitor's leveldb uses >>> compression >>> (and similar ones for osd_ldb_*). > > On request from Sage these are now "*_leveldb_*" instead of "*_ldb_*"; > I pushed that a couple hours ago. In case you haven't already pulled > down a copy, and so you know for when it gets into mainline and you go > to adjust it. :) I've been testing this over the last several days, both via the wip-leveldb-config branch, and then the next branch after that was merged into next. I've gotten slightly better startup behavior with mon_ldb_cache_size larger than the default 8 MiB in leveldb - I've used 64 MiB and 256 MiB, and found little to prefer one over the other. Both seem to be preferable to the default, at least wrt. startup behavior at the number of PGs (256K) I'm testing. Other than that, I've had no trouble with the new tunings. I'm sorry for the delay in reporting - I've had a little hardware trouble, and was trying to be sure that any issues I've been having were related to that and not these patches. -- Jim > -Greg > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > > -- 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
