Am 10.02.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Gregory Farnum:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
(http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is released.
Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s than
dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 4k
writes
- stopped qemu
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
- start qemu
same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
We're all going to have the same questions now as we did last time,
about what the cluster looks like, what the perfcounters are reporting
on both versions of librados, etc.
I try to answer all your questions - not sue how easy this is.
6 Nodes each with:
- Single Intel E5-1650 v3
- 48GB RAM
- 4x 800GB Samsung SSD
- 2x 10Gbit/s bonded storage network
- Client side
- Dual Xeon E5
- 256GB RAM
- 2x 10Gbit/s bonded storage network
Regarding perf counters - i'm willing to make tests. Just tell me how.
Also, please give us the results from Giant rather than Firefly, for
the reasons I mentioned previously.
As giant is not a long term release and we have a support contract it's
not an option to me. Even tough i tried hammer git master three days
ago. Same results.
Stefan
--
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
