I tried 4.1 kernel and 0.94.2 ceph-fuse. their performance are about the same. fuse: Files=191, Tests=1964, 60 wallclock secs ( 0.43 usr 0.08 sys + 1.16 cusr 0.65 csys = 2.32 CPU) kernel: Files=191, Tests=2286, 61 wallclock secs ( 0.45 usr 0.08 sys + 1.21 cusr 0.72 csys = 2.46 CPU) > On Jun 29, 2015, at 19:03, Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Zheng, I don't have any idea what pieces have changed in that kernel > range. Did we have to flip some switches that slowed things down and > we expect to flip back, or did something more fundamental happen? Do > these results make any sense? I'm a little surprised to find ceph-fuse > that much faster than either kernel, but I've not checked the clock > times in our own tests. > -Greg > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today we are running some tests with this POSIX compatibility test [1] >> and noticed a possible performance regression in the latest kernel. >> The cluster we are testing is 0.94.2. >> >> 0.94.2 ceph-fuse client: >> All tests successful. >> Files=184, Tests=1957, 83 wallclock secs ( 0.72 usr 0.16 sys + 5.55 >> cusr 10.17 csys = 16.60 CPU) >> Result: PASS >> >> Kernel client 3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64: >> All tests successful. >> Files=184, Tests=1957, 143 wallclock secs ( 0.88 usr 0.15 sys + 5.86 >> cusr 10.43 csys = 17.32 CPU) >> Result: PASS >> >> Kernel client 4.1.0-1.el7.elrepo.x86_64: >> All tests successful. >> Files=184, Tests=1957, 378 wallclock secs ( 0.81 usr 0.34 sys + 5.30 >> cusr 9.75 csys = 16.20 CPU) >> Result: PASS >> >> Any idea why the kernel client is getting much slower? >> >> Cheers, Dan >> >> [1] http://tuxera.com/sw/qa/pjd-fstest-20080816.tgz >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
 |