On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Somnath Roy <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.. So you mean that the improved performance from Jewel is caused by filestore write path optimization(as listed in pr)? BTW, I just see your IF100 in customer env, congratulations! http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=dcb1d53 > > -----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? -- Best Regards, Wheat -- 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
