Re: Performance question

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

 



7 total servers, 20 GIG pipe between servers, both reads and writes.  The network itself has plenty of pipe left, it is averaging 40Mbits/s 

Rados Bench SAS 30 writes
 Total time run:         30.591927
Total writes made:      386
Write size:             4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec):     50.471 

Stddev Bandwidth:       48.1052
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 160
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0
Average Latency:        1.25908
Stddev Latency:         2.62018
Max latency:            21.2809
Min latency:            0.029227

Rados Bench SSD writes
 Total time run:         20.425192
Total writes made:      1405
Write size:             4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec):     275.150 

Stddev Bandwidth:       122.565
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 576
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0
Average Latency:        0.231803
Stddev Latency:         0.190978
Max latency:            0.981022
Min latency:            0.0265421


As you can see SSD is better but not as much as I would expect SSD to be. 



On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Alan Johnson <alanj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hard to know without more config details such as no of servers, network  – GigE or !0 GigE, also not sure how you are measuring, (reads or writes) you could try RADOS bench as a baseline, I would expect more performance with 7 X 10K spinners journaled to SSDs. The fact that SSDs did not perform much better may mean to a bottleneck elsewhere – network perhaps?

From: Marek Dohojda [mailto:mdohojda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Alan Johnson
Cc: Haomai Wang; ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Subject: Re: Performance question

 

Yeah they are, that is one thing I was planning on changing, What I am really interested at the moment, is vague expected performance.  I mean is 100MB around normal, very low, or "could be better"?

 

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Alan Johnson <alanj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Are the journals on the same device – it might be better to use the SSDs for journaling since you are not getting better performance with SSDs?

 

From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marek Dohojda
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:24 PM
To: Haomai Wang
Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Performance question

 

 Sorry I should have specified SAS is the 100 MB :) , but to be honest SSD isn't much faster.

 

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Marek Dohojda
<mdohojda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No SSD and SAS are in two separate pools.
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Marek Dohojda
>> <mdohojda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I have a Hammer Ceph cluster on 7 nodes with total 14 OSDs.  7 of which
>> > are
>> > SSD and 7 of which are SAS 10K drives.  I get typically about 100MB IO
>> > rates
>> > on this cluster.

So which pool you get with 100 MB?


>>
>> You mixed up sas and ssd in one pool?
>>
>> >
>> > I have a simple question.  Is 100MB within my configuration what I
>> > should
>> > expect, or should it be higher? I am not sure if I should be looking for
>> > issues, or just accept what I have.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Wheat
>
>

--
Best Regards,

Wheat

 

 


_______________________________________________
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]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux