We might also be able to help you improve or better understand your results if you can tell us exactly what tests you're conducting that are giving you these numbers. -Greg On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Florent MONTHEL <fmonthel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Frederic, > > When you have Ceph cluster with 1 node you don’t experienced network and > communication overhead due to distributed model > With 2 nodes and EC 4+1 you will have communication between 2 nodes but you > will keep internal communication (2 chunks on first node and 3 chunks on > second node) > On your configuration EC pool is setup with 4+1 so you will have for each > write overhead due to write spreading on 5 nodes (for 1 customer IO, you > will experience 5 Ceph IO due to EC 4+1) > It’s the reason for that I think you’re reaching performance stability with > 5 nodes and more in your cluster > > > On Jul 20, 2015, at 10:35 AM, SCHAER Frederic <frederic.schaer@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > Hi, > > As I explained in various previous threads, I’m having a hard time getting > the most out of my test ceph cluster. > I’m benching things with rados bench. > All Ceph hosts are on the same 10GB switch. > > Basically, I know I can get about 1GB/s of disk write performance per host, > when I bench things with dd (hundreds of dd threads) +iperf 10gbit > inbound+iperf 10gbit outbound. > I also can get 2GB/s or even more if I don’t bench the network at the same > time, so yes, there is a bottleneck between disks and network, but I can’t > identify which one, and it’s not relevant for what follows anyway > (Dell R510 + MD1200 + PERC H700 + PERC H800 here, if anyone has hints about > this strange bottleneck though…) > > My hosts each are connected though a single 10Gbits/s link for now. > > My problem is the following. Please note I see the same kind of poor > performance with replicated pools... > When testing EC pools, I ended putting a 4+1 pool on a single node in order > to track down the ceph bottleneck. > On that node, I can get approximately 420MB/s write performance using rados > bench, but that’s fair enough since the dstat output shows that real data > throughput on disks is about 800+MB/s (that’s the ceph journal effect, I > presume). > > I tested Ceph on my other standalone nodes : I can also get around 420MB/s, > since they’re identical. > I’m testing things with 5 10Gbits/s clients, each running rados bench. > > But what I really don’t get is the following : > > - With 1 host : throughput is 420MB/s > - With 2 hosts : I get 640MB/s. That’s surely not 2x420MB/s. > - With 5 hosts : I get around 1375MB/s . That’s far from the > expected 2GB/s. > > The network never is maxed out, nor are the disks or CPUs. > The hosts throughput I see with rados bench seems to match the dstat > throughput. > That’s as if each additional host was only capable of adding 220MB/s of > throughput. Compare this to the 1GB/s they are capable of (420MB/s with > journals)… > > I’m therefore wondering what could possibly be so wrong with my setup ?? > Why would it impact so much the performance to add hosts ? > > On the hardware side, I have Broadcam BCM57711 10-Gigabit PCIe cards. > I know, not perfect, but not THAT bad neither… ? > > Any hint would be greatly appreciated ! > > Thanks > Frederic Schaer > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |