Hello, On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 01:29:18 +0000 Gruher, Joseph R wrote: [snip, nice enough test setup] > I notice in the FIO output despite the iodepth setting it seems to be > reporting an IO depth of only 1, which would certainly help explain poor > performance, but I'm at a loss as to why, I wonder if it could be > something specific to RBD behavior, like I need to use a different IO > engine to establish queue depth. > > IO depths : 1=200.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, > >=64=0.0% > This is definitely something with how you invoke fio, because when using the iometer simulation I get: IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.2%, 16=0.4%, 32=0.8%, >=64=98.4% /usr/share/doc/fio/examples/iometer-file-access-server.fio on Debian. And that uses libaio as well. Your Cosbench results sound about right, I get about 300 IOPS with the above fio parameters, to a 2 node cluster with just 1 weak sauce, SSD less OSD each and on 100Mb/s (yes, fast ether!) to boot. Clearly I'm less fortunate when it comes to hardware lying around for test setups. ^o^ Also from your own company: ^o^ http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/10/25/measure-ceph-rbd-performance-in-a-quantitative-way-part-i Regards, Christian -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |