All the numbers other than the last write numbers are from Hammer...Last one with jewel + an outstanding write path patch.. We used jemalloc based hammer + we have some tuning specific to our flash and environment.. -----Original Message----- From: Jens Rosenboom [mailto:j.rosenboom@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:13 AM To: Somnath Roy Cc: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Ceph scale testing 2016-01-21 5:03 GMT+01:00 Somnath Roy <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > Here is the copy of the ppt I presented in today's performance meeting.. > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1j4Lcb9fx0OY7eQlQ_iUI6TPVJ6t_or > ZWKJyhz0S_3ic/edit?usp=sharing Wow, these number look pretty impressive. Did you use some additional patches in your Jewel build? In my own testing I'm seeing only marginal improvements in plain Jewel vs. Hammer. To have a fair comparison, you should also use the same QD for both Hammer and Jewel. Finally, the avg latency for 4k ops isn't that significant, could you also add numbers for max latency or 99.xx percentile? ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z��u���ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
