Thank Mike,
High hopes right ;)
I guess we are not doing too bad compared to you numbers then. Just wish the gap was a little closer between native and ceph per osd.
C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s30 -o8 -fsequential -b1024 -BH -LS
c:\TestFile.dat
sqlio v1.5.SG
using system counter for latency timings, 100000000 counts per second
8 threads writing for 30 secs to file c:\TestFile.dat
using 1024KB sequential IOs
enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding
buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache)
using current size: 10240 MB for file: c:\TestFile.dat
initialization done
CUMULATIVE DATA:
throughput metrics:
IOs/sec: 180.20
MBs/sec: 180.20
latency metrics:
Min_Latency(ms): 39
Avg_Latency(ms): 352
Max_Latency(ms): 692
histogram:
ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+
%: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Mike Lowe <j.michael.lowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, in a word, yes. You really expect a network replicated storage system in user space to be comparable to direct attached ssd storage? For what it's worth, I've got a pile of regular spinning rust, this is what my cluster will do inside a vm with rbd writeback caching on. As you can see, latency is everything.dd if=/dev/zero of=1g bs=1M count=10241024+0 records in1024+0 records out1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.26289 s, 171 MB/sdd if=/dev/zero of=1g bs=1M count=1024 oflag=dsync1024+0 records in1024+0 records out1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 37.4144 s, 28.7 MB/sAs you can see, latency is a killer.On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Jason Villalta <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Any other thoughts on this thread guys. I am just crazy to want near native SSD performance on a small SSD cluster?On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Jason Villalta <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That dd give me this.dd if=ddbenchfile of=- bs=8K | dd if=- of=/dev/null bs=8K8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 31.1807 s, 263 MB/s
Which makes sense because the SSD is running as SATA 2 which should give 3Gbps or ~300MBpsI am still trying to better understand the speed difference between the small block speeds seen with dd vs the same small object size with rados. It is not a difference of a few MB per sec. It seems to nearly be a factor of 10. I just want to know if this is a hard limit in Ceph or a factor of the underlying disk speed. Meaning if I use spindles to read data would the speed be the same or would the read speed be a factor of 10 less than the speed of the underlying disk?On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As a general point, this benchmark may not do what you think it does, depending on the version of dd, as writes to /dev/null can be heavily optimised.
On 17 Sep 2013, at 21:47, Jason Villalta wrote:
> dd if=ddbenchfile of=/dev/null bs=8K
> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 19.7318 s, 415 MB/s
Try:
dd if=ddbenchfile of=- bs=8K | dd if=- of=/dev/null bs=8K
--
Alex Bligh
--
--
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
