On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Avner Ben Hanoch wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I tried to evaluate AsyncMessenger (together with its sub classes) and I >> found its code great in my eyes. Still, when using it at runtime, Ceph >> will warn you that this module is dangerous. > > In jewel we've removed the 'experimental' flag. Upgrade! > >> *I have two questions:* >> 1. Considering pros and cons, are there any cons when using >> AsyncMessenger instead of SimpleMessenger (like stability, or cpu/memory >> consumption, .) > > Less CPU, fewer threads, nicer code. > >> 2. I am considering a variant of AsyncMessenger that might require that >> both sides will be same messenger, I wonder, is it possible to use >> AsyncMessenger for private network between OSDs only and to remain with >> SimpleMessenger for all other messengers (for example, by just changing >> the lines that creates the 6 Messengers in ceph_osd.cc::main) > > It's the same protocol as SimpleMessenger, so there is no need to run > SimpleMessenger at all. (You can't currently use two types in the same > process, but I don't think there's any need to.) Recently we tested on a ~70 osds cluster used as rgw case. We can obverse ~20% performance improvement compared to simple while do cosbench benchmark. I'm not sure the actual reason now, but I guess in a resource-limited env, async behavior much better. > > sage > -- > 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
