Hi David, Generally speaking, it is going to be super difficult to maximize the bandwidth of NVMe with current Ceph latest release. In my humble opinion, I don't think Ceph is aiming at high performance storage. Here is link for your reference for some good work done by Samsung and SanDisk regarding to Ceph optimization for SSD including NVMe. http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/samsung-jbod-nvme-reference-system,1-2809.html Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J David Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:35 AM To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Ceph, SSD, and NVMe Because we have a good thing going, our Ceph clusters are still running Firefly on all of our clusters including our largest, all-SSD cluster. If I understand right, newer versions of Ceph make much better use of SSDs and give overall much higher performance on the same equipment. However, the impression I get of newer versions is that they are also not as stable as Firefly and should only be used with caution. Given our storage consumers have an effectively unlimited appetite for IOPs and throughput, more performance would be very welcome. But not if it leads to cluster crashes and lost data. What really prompts this is that we are starting to see large-scale NVMe equipment appearing in the channel ( e.g. http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/1028/SYS-1028U-TN10RT_.cfm ). The cost is significantly higher with commensurately higher theoretical perfomance. But if we're already not pushing our SSD's to the max over SAS, the added benefit of NVMe would largely be lost. On the other hand, if we could safely upgrade to a more recent version that is as stable and bulletproof as Firefly has been for us, but has better performance with SSDs, that would not only benefit our current setup, it would be a necessary first step for moving onto NVMe. So this raises three questions: 1) Have I correctly understood that one or more post-FireFly releases exist that (c.p.) perform significantly better with all-SSD setups? 2) Is there any such release that (generally) is as rock-solid as FireFly. Of course this is somewhat situationally dependent, so I would settle for: is there any such release that doesn't have any known minding-my-own-business-suddenly-lost-data bugs in a 100% RBD use case? 3) Has anyone done anything with NVMe as storage (not just journals) who would care to share what kind of performance they experienced? (Of course if we do upgrade we will do so carefully, do a test cluster first, have backups standing by, etc. But if it's already known that doing so will either not improve anything or is likely to blow up in our faces, it would be better to leave well enough alone. The current performance is by no means bad, we're just always greedy for more. :) ) Thanks for any advice/suggestions! _______________________________________________ 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
 |