Hello, On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:23:11 -0000 Nick Fisk wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > Of Christian Balzer > > Sent: 17 February 2016 04:22 > > To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Piotr Wachowicz <piotr.wachowicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: SSDs for journals vs SSDs for a cache tier, > which is > > better? > > [snip] > > > I'm sure both approaches have their own merits, and might be better > > > for some specific tasks, but with all other things being equal, I > > > would expect that using SSDs as the "Writeback" cache tier should, on > > > average, provide better performance than suing the same SSDs for > > Journals. > > > Specifically in the area of read throughput/latency. > > > > > Cache tiers (currently) work only well if all your hot data fits into > them. > > In which case you'd even better off with with a dedicated SSD pool for > that > > data. > > > > Because (currently) Ceph has to promote a full object (4MB by default) > > to the cache for each operation, be it read or or write. > > That means the first time you want to read a 2KB file in your RBD > > backed > VM, > > Ceph has to copy 4MB from the HDD pool to the SSD cache tier. > > This has of course a significant impact on read performance, in my > > crappy > test > > cluster reading cold data is half as fast as using the actual > > non-cached > HDD > > pool. > > > > Just a FYI, there will most likely be several fixes/improvements going > into Jewel which will address most of these problems with caching. > Objects will now only be promoted if they are hit several > times(configurable) and, if it makes it in time, a promotion throttle to > stop too many promotions hindering cluster performance. > Ah, both of these would be very nice indeed, especially since the first one is something that's supposedly already present (but broken). The 2nd one, if done right, will be probably a game changer. Robert LeBlanc and me will be most pleased. > However in the context of this thread, Christian is correct, SSD journals > first and then caching if needed. > Yeah, thus my overuse of "currently". ^o^ Christian > > > And once your cache pool has to evict objects because it is getting > > full, > it has > > to write out 4MB for each such object to the HDD pool. > > Then read it back in later, etc. > > > > > The main difference, I suspect, between the two approaches is that in > > > the case of multiple HDDs (multiple ceph-osd processes), all of those > > > processes share access to the same shared SSD storing their journals. > > > Whereas it's likely not the case with Cache tiering, right? Though I > > > must say I failed to find any detailed info on this. Any > > > clarification will be appreciated. > > > > > In your specific case writes to the OSDs (HDDs) will be (at least) 50% > slower if > > your journals are on disk instead of the SSD. > > (Which SSDs do you plan to use anyway?) > > I don't think you'll be happy with the resulting performance. > > > > Christian. > > > > > So, is the above correct, or am I missing some pieces here? Any other > > > major differences between the two approaches? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > P. > > > > > > -- > > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > > chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications > > http://www.gol.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |