Re: Performance dégradation after upgrade to hammer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Florent,

10x degradation is definitely unusual!  A couple of things to look at:

Are 8K rados bench writes to the rgw.buckets pool slow? You can with something like:

rados -p rgw.buckets bench 30 write -t 256 -b 8192

You may also want to try targeting a specific RGW server to make sure the RR-DNS setup isn't interfering (at least while debugging). It may also be worth creating a new replicated pool and try writes to that pool as well to see if you see much difference.

Mark

On 07/14/2015 07:17 PM, Florent MONTHEL wrote:
Yes of course thanks Mark

Infrastructure : 5 servers with 10 sata disks (50 osd at all) - 10gb connected - EC 2+1 on rgw.buckets pool - 2 radosgw RR-DNS like installed on 2 cluster servers
No SSD drives used

We're using Cosbench to send :
- 8k object size : 100% read with 256 workers : better results with Hammer
  - 8k object size : 80% read - 20% write with 256 workers : real degradation between Firefly and Hammer (divided by something like 10)
- 8k object size : 100% write with 256 workers : real degradation between Firefly and Hammer (divided by something like 10)

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

On 14 juil. 2015, at 19:57, Mark Nelson <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 07/14/2015 06:42 PM, Florent MONTHEL wrote:
Hi All,

I've just upgraded Ceph cluster from Firefly 0.80.8 (Redhat Ceph 1.2.3) to Hammer (Redhat Ceph 1.3) - Usage : radosgw with Apache 2.4.19 on MPM prefork mode
I'm experiencing huge write performance degradation just after upgrade (Cosbench).

Do you already run performance tests between Hammer and Firefly ?

No problem with read performance that was amazing

Hi Florent,

Can you talk a little bit about how your write tests are setup?  How many concurrent IOs and what size?  Also, do you see similar problems with rados bench?

We have done some testing and haven't seen significant performance degradation except when switching to civetweb which appears to perform deletes more slowly than what we saw with apache+fcgi.

Mark



Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux