> On 27 Aug 2015, at 20:57, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Jan Schermer wrote: >> Some comments inline. >> A lot of it depends on your workload, but I'd say you almost certainly need >> higher-grade SSDs. You can save money on memory. >> >> What will be the role of this cluster? VM disks? Object storage? >> Streaming?... >> >> Jan >> >> On 27 Aug 2015, at 17:56, German Anders wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm planning to deploy a new Ceph cluster with IB FDR 56Gb/s and I've the >> following HW: >> >> 3x MON Servers: >> 2x Intel Xeon E5-2600@v3 8C > > This is overkill if only a monitor server. Maybe with newer releases of Ceph, but my Mons spin CPU pretty high (100% core, which means it doesn't scale that well with cores), and when adding/removing OSDs or shuffling data some of the peering issues I've seen were caused by lagging Mons. > >> >> 256GB RAM >> >> >> I don't think you need that much memory, 64GB should be plenty (if that's >> the only role for the servers). > > > If it is only monitor, you can get by with even less. > >> >> 1xIB FRD ADPT-DP (two ports for PUB network) >> 1xGB ADPT-DP >> >> Disk Layout: >> >> SOFT-RAID: >> SCSI1 (0,0,0) (sda) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB12 (OS-RAID1) >> SCSI2 (0,0,0) (sdb) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB12 (OS-RAID1) >> >> >> I 100% recommend going with SSDs for the /var/lib/ceph/mon storage, fast >> ones (but they can be fairly small). Should be the same grade as journal >> drives IMO. >> NOT S3500! >> I can recommend S3610 (just got some :)), Samsung 845 DC PRO. At least 1 >> DWPD rating, better go with 3 DWPD. > > S3500 should be just fine here. I get 25% better performance on the > S3500 vs the S3700 doing sync direct writes. Write endurance should be > just fine as the volume of data is not going to be that great. Unless > there is something else I'm not aware of. > S3500 is faster than S3700? I can compare 3700 x 3510 x 3610 tomorrow but I'd be very surprised if the S3500 had a _sustained_ throughput better than 36xx or 37xx. Were you comparing that on the same HBA and in the same way? (No offense, just curious) Mons can use some space, I've experienced logging havoc, leveldb bloating havoc (I have to compact manually or it just grows and grows), and my Mons write quite a lot at times. I guesstimate my mons can write 200GB a day, often less but often more. Maybe that's not normal. I can confirm those numbers tomorrow. >> >> >> 8x OSD Servers: >> 2x Intel Xeon E5-2600@v3 10C >> >> >> Go for the fastest you can afford if you need the latency - even at the >> expense of cores. >> Go for cores if you want bigger throughput. > > I'm in the middle of my testing, but it seems that with lots of I/O > depth (either from a single client or multiple clients) that clock > speed does not have as much of an impact as core count does. Once I'm > done, I'll be posting my results. Unless you have a single client that > has a QD=1, go for cores at this point. NoSQL is basically still a database, and while NoSQL is mostly a more modern stuff which is built for clouds and horizontal scaling, you still need some baseline performance to achieve a good durability/replication and stuff. > >> >> 256GB RAM >> >> >> Again - I think too much if that's the only role for those nodes, 64GB >> should be plenty. > > Agree, if you can afford more RAM, it just means more page cache. But too much page cache = bad. > >> >> >> 1xIB FRD ADPT-DP (one port for PUB and one for CLUS network) >> 1xGB ADPT-DP >> >> Disk Layout: >> >> SOFT-RAID: >> SCSI1 (0,0,0) (sda) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB12 (OS-RAID1) >> SCSI2 (0,0,0) (sdb) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB12 (OS-RAID1) >> >> JBOD: >> SCSI9 (0,0,0) (sdd) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SC3500 SSDSC2BB12 (Journal) >> SCSI9 (0,1,0) (sde) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SC3500 SSDSC2BB12 (Journal) >> SCSI9 (0,2,0) (sdf) - 120.0 GB ATA INTEL SC3500 SSDSC2BB12 (Journal) >> >> >> No no no. Those SSDs will die a horrible death, too little endurance. >> Better go with 2x 3700 in RAID1 and partition them for journals. Or just >> don't use journaling drives and buy better SSDs for storage. > > If he is only using these for journals, he can be just fine. He can > get the same endurance as the S3700 by only using a portion of the > drive space. [1][2] True for the 120GB drives. You only really need something like 1-10GB at most. I'd still get a smaller higher-class drive and just not touch provisioning, if only for the sake of warranty. But I think it's easier to just skip dedicated journal drives in this case. NoSQL is very write intensive - depending on implemenation (applications) of course. But it's not unusual to have 300MB of semi-structured data and 100GB indexes that are rebuilt all the time (of course that indicates the developers were just lazystupid, which is exactly why NoSQL is so popular and Agile :)). > >> >> SCSI9 (0,3,0) (sdg) - 800.2 GB ATA INTEL SC3510 SSDSC2BB80 (Pool-SSD) >> SCSI9 (0,4,0) (sdh) - 800.2 GB ATA INTEL SC3510 SSDSC2BB80 (Pool-SSD) >> SCSI9 (0,5,0) (sdi) - 800.2 GB ATA INTEL SC3510 SSDSC2BB80 (Pool-SSD) >> SCSI9 (0,6,0) (sdj) - 800.2 GB ATA INTEL SC3510 SSDSC2BB80 (Pool-SSD) >> >> >> Too little endurance. >> > > Same as above > > > [1] http://www.sandisk.com/assets/docs/WP004_OverProvisioning_WhyHow_FINAL.pdf > [2] http://storage.toshiba.com/docs/services-support-documents/ssd_application_note.pdf > > > > - ---------------- > Robert LeBlanc > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >> >> SCSI9 (0,7,0) (sdk) - 3.0 TB SEAGATE ST3000NM0023 (Pool-SATA) >> SCSI9 (0,8,0) (sdl) - 3.0 TB SEAGATE ST3000NM0023 (Pool-SATA) >> SCSI9 (0,9,0) (sdm) - 3.0 TB SEAGATE ST3000NM0023 (Pool-SATA) >> SCSI9 (0,10,0) (sdn) - 3.0 TB SEAGATE ST3000NM0023 (Pool-SATA) >> SCSI9 (0,11,0) (sdo) - 3.0 TB SEAGATE ST3000NM0023 (Pool-SATA) >> >> >> I would like to have an expert opinion on what would be the best >> deploy/config disk pools and crush map? any other advice? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Best regards, >> >> German >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v1.0.2 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJV312OCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAeeIQALYXTexJrjBtm6QskUgy > dxjqCmxpMqRs1ryQSqfpQeR8UjryIxvbYkd/Nx+IroNSnJrHLLQoHMXb5ib3 > bnCVl/Sgqkm6Tz+u/jtWyYPRf5oRAgpU+ApBTeYwuSNRf+e5yTYCeHFjm/2N > 3HJ4SyAblpYRCq4fOr4t/p7mWlXomiIJiXfOLKXnBtZoYgr89/u4rekht4O5 > fVZqsJrzRRcD5yp56Mz9+MlwBt+zlPkNxB6tg4L1GkIfGkZDa2tqclOzJFxa > 1g9702TkBbtg0xFyttb0LcH98tkppjXpOOPkfsdIznQ1QpgcBwUBDN9+/88c > JLjcdH9lrauQTcnBPavtSGM/jlzERN6gNvFMeOz9b7596++ffwWN/nrAoIAL > wUSaAg+1ENSorcwkWXxwZOocdpkiX4Z6tJVis2i0cvvdtpclJue/bHZnxmRm > ddO6DDouVV1Q19hbqr/C7aGpJsqwBLfiVzFNHeIGjOp4J7nP8w4RsNXsRWsW > v2O6B3uqaCJpPmimA8fNj6gEfgYdQThxXBcnypC98wdtavSMndjs/QY7G1Eo > vyUsKHSqiv+C0g6DRJr6cpm3CoMNzBEnRIbCfZawmVGsjEZkgmelapa3RQNy > p6BM3UymWYfpA+/WkJmJxlSUf9RpWOvXdmRmLDwuiDhfk5jWL42ejt5lGenG > G0bP > =5Tyc > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |