>>You didn't specify what you did, but i assume you did read test. yes, indeed >>Those scale, as in running fio in multiple VMs in parallel gives me about >>6200 IOPS each, so much better than the 7200 for a single one. >>And yes, the client CPU is quite busy. oh ok ! >>However my real, original question is about writes. And they are stuck at >>3200 IOPS, cluster wide, no matter how many parallel VMs are running fio... Sorry, can test for write, don't have ssd journal for now. I'll try to send result when I'll have my ssd cluster. (But I remember some talk from Sage saying than indeed small direct write could be pretty slow, that why rbd_cache is recommended, to aggregate small writes in bigger one) ----- Mail original ----- De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> ?: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier at odiso.com> Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 18:31:18 Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and backing devices On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:10:25 +0200 (CEST) Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > I have just done some test, > > with fio-rbd, > (http://telekomcloud.github.io/ceph/2014/02/26/ceph-performance-analysis_fio_rbd.html) > > directly from the kvm host,(not from the vm). > > > 1 fio job: around 8000iops > 2 differents parralel fio job (on different rbd volume) : around > 8000iops by fio job ! > > cpu on client is at 100% > cpu of osd are around 70%/1core now. > > > So, seem to have a bottleneck client side somewhere. > You didn't specify what you did, but i assume you did read test. Those scale, as in running fio in multiple VMs in parallel gives me about 6200 IOPS each, so much better than the 7200 for a single one. And yes, the client CPU is quite busy. However my real, original question is about writes. And they are stuck at 3200 IOPS, cluster wide, no matter how many parallel VMs are running fio... Christian > (I remember some tests from Stefan Priebe on this mailing, with a full > ssd cluster, having almost same results) > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier at odiso.com> > ?: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> > Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 17:16:25 > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and backing > devices > > >>Actually check your random read output again, you gave it the wrong > >>parameter, it needs to be randread, not rand-read. > > oops, sorry. I got around 7500iops with randread. > > >>Your cluster isn't that old (the CPUs are in the same ballpark) > Yes, this is 6-7 year old server. (this xeons were released in 2007...) > > So, it miss some features like crc32 and sse4 for examples, which can > help a lot ceph > > > > (I'll try to do some osd tuning (threads,...) to see if I can improve > performance. > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> > ?: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier at odiso.com> > Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 16:39:58 > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and backing > devices > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:09:28 +0200 (CEST) Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > > > >>For what it's worth, my cluster gives me 4100 IOPS with the > > >>sequential fio run below and 7200 when doing random reads (go > > >>figure). Of course I made sure these came come the pagecache of the > > >>storage nodes, no disk I/O reported at all and the CPUs used just 1 > > >>core per OSD. --- > > >>fio --size=400m --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1 --direct=1 > > >>--numjobs=1 --rw=read --name=fiojob --blocksize=4k --iodepth=64 --- > > > > This seem pretty low, > > > > I can get around 6000iops seq or rand read, > Actually check your random read output again, you gave it the wrong > parameter, it needs to be randread, not rand-read. > > > with a pretty old cluster > > > Your cluster isn't that old (the CPUs are in the same ballpark) and has > 12 OSDs instead of my 4. Plus it has the supposedly faster firefly. ^o^ > > Remember, all this is coming from RAM, so what it boils down is CPU > (memory and bus transfer speeds) and of course your network. > Which is probably why your cluster isn't even more faster than mine. > > Either way, that number isn't anywhere near 4000 read IOPS per OSD > either, yours is about 500, mine about 1000... > > Christian > > > 3 nodes cluster (replication x3), firefly, kernel 3.10, xfs, no tuning > > in ceph.conf > > > > each node: > > ---------- > > -2x quad xeon E5430 @ 2.66GHz > > -4 osd, seageate 7,2k sas (with 512MB cache on controller). (journal > > on same disk than osd, no dedicated ssd) -2 gigabit link (lacp) > > -switch cisco 2960 > > > > > > > > each osd process are around 30% 1core during benchmark > > no disk access (pagecache on ceph nodes) > > > > > > > > sequential > > ---------- > > # fio --size=400m --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1 --direct=1 > > --numjobs=1 --rw=read --name=fiojob --blocksize=4k --iodepth=64 > > --filename=/dev/vdb fiojob: (g=0): rw=read, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, > > ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 2.0.8 Starting 1 process > > Jobs: 1 (f=1): [R] [100.0% done] [23968K/0K /s] [5992 /0 iops] [eta > > 00m:00s] fiojob: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4158 > > read : io=409600KB, bw=22256KB/s, iops=5564 , runt= 18404msec > > slat (usec): min=3 , max=1124 , avg=12.03, stdev=12.72 > > clat (msec): min=1 , max=405 , avg=11.48, stdev=12.10 > > lat (msec): min=1 , max=405 , avg=11.50, stdev=12.10 > > clat percentiles (msec): > > | 1.00th=[ 5], 5.00th=[ 9], 10.00th=[ 10], 20.00th=[ 10], > > | 30.00th=[ 11], 40.00th=[ 11], 50.00th=[ 11], 60.00th=[ 12], > > | 70.00th=[ 12], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 13], 95.00th=[ 15], > > | 99.00th=[ 19], 99.50th=[ 20], 99.90th=[ 206], 99.95th=[ 404], > > | 99.99th=[ 404] > > bw (KB/s) : min= 7542, max=24720, per=100.00%, avg=22321.06, > > stdev=3341.21 lat (msec) : 2=0.04%, 4=0.60%, 10=21.40%, 20=77.54%, > > 50=0.23% lat (msec) : 250=0.13%, 500=0.06% > > cpu : usr=3.76%, sys=10.32%, ctx=45280, majf=0, minf=88 > > IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, > > >=64=99.9% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, > > >64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% > > complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, > > >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=102400/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 > > > > > > Run status group 0 (all jobs): > > READ: io=409600KB, aggrb=22256KB/s, minb=22256KB/s, maxb=22256KB/s, > > mint=18404msec, maxt=18404msec > > > > > > Disk stats (read/write): > > vdb: ios=101076/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1157172/0, in_queue=1157380, > > util=99.58% > > > > > > random read > > ----------- > > # fio --size=400m --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1 --direct=1 > > --numjobs=1 --rw=rand-read --name=fiojob --blocksize=4k --iodepth=64 > > --filename=/dev/vdb valid values: read Sequential read : write > > Sequential write : randread Random read > > : randwrite Random write > > : rw Sequential read and write mix > > : readwrite Sequential read and write mix > > : randrw Random read and write mix > > > > > > fio: failed parsing rw=rand-read > > fiojob: (g=0): rw=read, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 > > 2.0.8 > > Starting 1 process > > Jobs: 1 (f=1): [R] [94.7% done] [23752K/0K /s] [5938 /0 iops] [eta > > 00m:01s] fiojob: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4172 > > read : io=409600KB, bw=22887KB/s, iops=5721 , runt= 17897msec > > slat (usec): min=3 , max=929 , avg=11.75, stdev=11.38 > > clat (msec): min=1 , max=407 , avg=11.17, stdev= 9.24 > > lat (msec): min=1 , max=407 , avg=11.18, stdev= 9.24 > > clat percentiles (msec): > > | 1.00th=[ 6], 5.00th=[ 9], 10.00th=[ 10], 20.00th=[ 10], > > | 30.00th=[ 11], 40.00th=[ 11], 50.00th=[ 11], 60.00th=[ 12], > > | 70.00th=[ 12], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 13], 95.00th=[ 14], > > | 99.00th=[ 19], 99.50th=[ 20], 99.90th=[ 60], 99.95th=[ 359], > > | 99.99th=[ 404] > > bw (KB/s) : min= 8112, max=25120, per=100.00%, avg=22967.77, > > stdev=2657.48 lat (msec) : 2=0.05%, 4=0.46%, 10=22.83%, 20=76.34%, > > 50=0.21% lat (msec) : 100=0.05%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.06% > > cpu : usr=4.14%, sys=10.01%, ctx=44760, majf=0, minf=88 > > IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, > > >=64=99.9% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, > > >64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% > > complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, > > >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=102400/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 > > > > > > Run status group 0 (all jobs): > > READ: io=409600KB, aggrb=22886KB/s, minb=22886KB/s, maxb=22886KB/s, > > mint=17897msec, maxt=17897msec > > > > > > Disk stats (read/write): > > vdb: ios=100981/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1124768/0, in_queue=1125492, > > util=99.57% > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MonSiteEstLent.com - Blog d?di? ? la webperformance et la gestion de > > pics de trafic > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > > > De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> > > ?: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier at odiso.com> > > Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > > Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 14:38:57 > > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and > > backing devices > > > > > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:36:49 +0200 (CEST) Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > > > > > >>It might, but at the IOPS I'm seeing anybody using SSD for file > > > >>storage should have screamed out already. > > > >>Also given the CPU usage I'm seeing during that test run such a > > > >>setup would probably require 32+ cores. > > > > > > Just found this: > > > > > > https://objects.dreamhost.com/inktankweb/Inktank_Hardware_Configuration_Guide.pdf > > > > > That's and interesting find indeed. > > > > The CPU to OSD chart clearly assumes the OSD to be backed by spinning > > rust or doing 4MB block transactions. > > As stated before, at the 4KB blocksize below one OSD eats up slightly > > over 2 cores on the 4332HE at full speed. > > > > > page12: > > > > > > " Note: As of Ceph Dumpling release (10/2013), a per-OSD read > > > performance is approximately 4,000 IOPS and a per node limit of > > > around 35,000 IOPS when doing reads directly from pagecache. This > > > appears to indicate that Ceph can make good use of spinning disks > > > for data storage and may benefit from SSD backed OSDs, though may > > > also be limited on high performance SSDs." > > > > > Node that this a read test and like nearly all IOPS statements utterly > > worthless unless qualified by things as block size, working set size, > > type of I/O (random or sequential). > > > > For what it's worth, my cluster gives me 4100 IOPS with the sequential > > fio run below and 7200 when doing random reads (go figure). Of course > > I made sure these came come the pagecache of the storage nodes, no > > disk I/O reported at all and the CPUs used just 1 core per OSD. > > --- > > fio --size=400m --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1 --direct=1 > > --numjobs=1 --rw=read --name=fiojob --blocksize=4k --iodepth=64 --- > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > Maybe Intank could comment about the 4000iops by osd ? > > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre Derumier Ing?nieur syst?me et stockage Fixe : 03 20 68 90 88 > > Fax : 03 20 68 90 81 45 Bvd du G?n?ral Leclerc 59100 Roubaix 12 rue > > Marivaux 75002 Paris MonSiteEstLent.com - Blog d?di? ? la > > webperformance et la gestion de pics de trafic ----- Mail original > > ----- > > > > > > De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> > > > ?: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > > > Cc: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier at odiso.com> > > > Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 11:51:37 > > > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and > > > backing devices > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:33:27 +0200 (CEST) Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > > > I'm going to test a full ssd cluster in coming months, > > > > I'll send result on the mailing. > > > > > > > Looking forward to that. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have tried to use 1 osd by physical disk ? (without raid6) > > > > > > > No, if you look back to the last year December "Sanity check..." > > > thread by me, it gives the reasons. > > > In short, highest density (thus replication of 2 and to make that > > > safe based on RAID6) and operational maintainability (it is a remote > > > data center, so replacing broken disks is a pain). > > > > > > That cluster is fast enough for my purposes and that fio test isn't > > > a typical load for it when it goes into production. > > > But for designing a general purpose or high performance Ceph cluster > > > in the future I'd really love to have this mystery solved. > > > > > > > Maybe they are bottleneck in osd daemon, > > > > and using osd daemon by disk could help. > > > > > > > It might, but at the IOPS I'm seeing anybody using SSD for file > > > storage should have screamed out already. > > > Also given the CPU usage I'm seeing during that test run such a > > > setup would probably require 32+ cores. > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > > > > > > > De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com> > > > > ?: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > > > > Envoy?: Mardi 13 Mai 2014 11:03:47 > > > > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal and > > > > backing devices > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm clearly talking to myself, but whatever. > > > > > > > > For Greg, I've played with all the pertinent journal and filestore > > > > options and TCP nodelay, no changes at all. > > > > > > > > Is there anybody on this ML who's running a Ceph cluster with a > > > > fast network and FAST filestore, so like me with a big HW cache in > > > > front of a RAID/JBODs or using SSDs for final storage? > > > > > > > > If so, what results do you get out of the fio statement below per > > > > OSD? In my case with 4 OSDs and 3200 IOPS that's about 800 IOPS > > > > per OSD, which is of course vastly faster than the normal > > > > indvidual HDDs could do. > > > > > > > > So I'm wondering if I'm hitting some inherent limitation of how > > > > fast a single OSD (as in the software) can handle IOPS, given that > > > > everything else has been ruled out from where I stand. > > > > > > > > This would also explain why none of the option changes or the use > > > > of RBD caching has any measurable effect in the test case below. > > > > As in, a slow OSD aka single HDD with journal on the same disk > > > > would clearly benefit from even the small 32MB standard RBD cache, > > > > while in my test case the only time the caching becomes noticeable > > > > is if I increase the cache size to something larger than the test > > > > data size. ^o^ > > > > > > > > On the other hand if people here regularly get thousands or tens > > > > of thousands IOPS per OSD with the appropriate HW I'm stumped. > > > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 May 2014 11:01:26 +0900 Christian Balzer wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 May 2014 22:13:53 -0700 Gregory Farnum wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I didn't notice that. I bet you aren't getting the > > > > > > expected throughput on the RAID array with OSD access > > > > > > patterns, and that's applying back pressure on the journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the a "picture" being worth a thousand words tradition, I > > > > > give you this iostat -x output taken during a fio run: > > > > > > > > > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > > > > > 50.82 0.00 19.43 0.17 0.00 29.58 > > > > > > > > > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s > > > > > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util > > > > > sda 0.00 51.50 0.00 1633.50 0.00 7460.00 > > > > > 9.13 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 1.40 sdb > > > > > 0.00 0.00 0.00 1240.50 0.00 5244.00 8.45 0.30 > > > > > 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.02 2.00 sdc 0.00 5.00 > > > > > 0.00 2468.50 0.00 13419.00 10.87 0.24 0.10 0.00 > > > > > 0.10 0.09 22.00 sdd 0.00 6.50 0.00 1913.00 > > > > > 0.00 10313.00 10.78 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.09 16.60 > > > > > > > > > > The %user CPU utilization is pretty much entirely the 2 OSD > > > > > processes, note the nearly complete absence of iowait. > > > > > > > > > > sda and sdb are the OSDs RAIDs, sdc and sdd are the journal > > > > > SSDs. Look at these numbers, the lack of queues, the low wait > > > > > and service times (this is in ms) plus overall utilization. > > > > > > > > > > The only conclusion I can draw from these numbers and the > > > > > network results below is that the latency happens within the OSD > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > When I suggested other tests, I meant with and without Ceph. > > > > > > One particular one is OSD bench. That should be interesting to > > > > > > try at a variety of block sizes. You could also try runnin > > > > > > RADOS bench and smalliobench at a few different sizes. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2014, Alexandre DERUMIER > > > > > > <aderumier at odiso.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have tried without raid6, to have more osd ? > > > > > > > (how many disks do you have begin the raid6 ?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aslo, I known that direct ios can be quite slow with ceph, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe can you try without --direct=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and also enable rbd_cache > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ceph.conf > > > > > > > [client] > > > > > > > rbd cache = true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > ?: "Gregory Farnum" <greg at inktank.com <javascript:;>>, > > > > > > > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > Envoy?: Jeudi 8 Mai 2014 04:49:16 > > > > > > > Objet: Re: Slow IOPS on RBD compared to journal > > > > > > > and backing devices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 May 2014 18:37:48 -0700 Gregory Farnum wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Christian Balzer > > > > > > > > <chibi at gol.com<javascript:;>> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ceph 0.72 on Debian Jessie, 2 storage nodes with 2 OSDs > > > > > > > > > each. The journals are on (separate) DC 3700s, the > > > > > > > > > actual OSDs are RAID6 behind an Areca 1882 with 4GB of > > > > > > > > > cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Running this fio: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fio --size=400m --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1 > > > > > > > > > --direct=1 --numjobs=1 --rw=randwrite --name=fiojob > > > > > > > > > --blocksize=4k --iodepth=128 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 30k IOPS on the journal SSD (as expected) > > > > > > > > > 110k IOPS on the OSD (it fits neatly into the cache, no > > > > > > > > > surprise there) 3200 IOPS from a VM using userspace RBD > > > > > > > > > 2900 IOPS from a host kernelspace mounted RBD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When running the fio from the VM RBD the utilization of > > > > > > > > > the journals is about 20% (2400 IOPS) and the OSDs are > > > > > > > > > bored at 2% (1500 IOPS after some obvious merging). > > > > > > > > > The OSD processes are quite busy, reading well over 200% > > > > > > > > > on atop, but the system is not CPU or otherwise resource > > > > > > > > > starved at that moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Running multiple instances of this test from several VMs > > > > > > > > > on different hosts changes nothing, as in the aggregated > > > > > > > > > IOPS for the whole cluster will still be around 3200 > > > > > > > > > IOPS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now clearly RBD has to deal with latency here, but the > > > > > > > > > network is IPoIB with the associated low latency and the > > > > > > > > > journal SSDs are the (consistently) fasted ones around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess what I am wondering about is if this is normal > > > > > > > > > and to be expected or if not where all that potential > > > > > > > > > performance got lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, with 128 IOs at a time (I believe I'm reading that > > > > > > > > correctly?) > > > > > > > Yes, but going down to 32 doesn't change things one iota. > > > > > > > Also note the multiple instances I mention up there, so that > > > > > > > would be 256 IOs at a time, coming from different hosts over > > > > > > > different links and nothing changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's about 40ms of latency per op (for userspace RBD), > > > > > > > > which seems awfully long. You should check what your > > > > > > > > client-side objecter settings are; it might be limiting > > > > > > > > you to fewer outstanding ops than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Googling for client-side objecter gives a few hits on ceph > > > > > > > devel and bugs and nothing at all as far as configuration > > > > > > > options are concerned. Care to enlighten me where one can > > > > > > > find those? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also note the kernelspace (3.13 if it matters) speed, which > > > > > > > is very much in the same (junior league) ballpark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > it's available to you, testing with Firefly or even master > > > > > > > > would be interesting ? there's some performance work that > > > > > > > > should reduce latencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not an option, this is going into production next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But a well-tuned (or even default-tuned, I thought) Ceph > > > > > > > > cluster certainly doesn't require 40ms/op, so you should > > > > > > > > probably run a wider array of experiments to try and > > > > > > > > figure out where it's coming from. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can rule out the network, NPtcp gives me: > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > 56: 4096 bytes 1546 times --> 979.22 Mbps in 31.91 usec > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For comparison at about 512KB it reaches maximum throughput > > > > > > > and still isn't that laggy: > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > 98: 524288 bytes 121 times --> 9700.57 Mbps in 412.35 usec > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So with the network performing as well as my lengthy > > > > > > > experience with IPoIB led me to believe, what else is there > > > > > > > to look at? The storage nodes perform just as expected, > > > > > > > indicated by the local fio tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That pretty much leaves only Ceph/RBD to look at and I'm not > > > > > > > really sure what experiments I should run on that. ^o^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | > > > > > > > > http://ceph.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > > > > > > > chibi at gol.com <javascript:;> Global OnLine Japan/Fusion > > > > > > > Communications http://www.gol.com/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > ceph-users mailing list > > > > > > > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi at gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications http://www.gol.com/
 |