On 9 January 2014 15:44, Christian Kauhaus <kc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 10:25, schrieb Bradley Kite:
> 3 servers (quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM), each with 4 SATA 7.2K RPM disks (4TB)> [...]
> plus a 160GB SSD.
> By comparison, a 12-disk RAID5 iscsi SAN is doing ~4000 read iops and ~2000I think that comparing Ceph on 7.2k rpm SATA disks against iSCSI on 15k rpm
> iops write (but with 15KRPM SAS disks).
SAS disks is not fair. The random access times of 15k SAS disks are hugely
better compared to 7.2k SATA disks. What would be far more interesting is to
compare Ceph against iSCSI with identical disks.
Regards
Christian
--
Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · kc@xxxxxxxxxx · systems administration
gocept gmbh & co. kg · Forsterstraße 29 · 06112 Halle (Saale) · Germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 219401-11
Python, Pyramid, Plone, Zope · consulting, development, hosting, operations
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Hi Christian,
Yes, for a true comparison it would be better but this is the only iscsi SAN that we have available for testing, so I really only compared against it to get a "gut feel" for relative performance.
I'm still looking for clues that might indicate why there is such a huge difference between the read & write rates on the ceph cluster though.
I've been doing some more testing, and the raw random read/write performance of the individual bcache OSD's is around 1500 iops/second so I feel I should be getting significantly more from ceph than what I am able to.
Of course, as soon as bcache stops providing benefits (ie data is pushed out of the SSD cache) then the raw performance drops to a standard SATA drive of around 120 IOPS.
Regards
--
Brad.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
