Hi, Am 13.04.2016 um 04:29 schrieb Christian Balzer: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:00:19 +0200 Michael Metz-Martini | SpeedPartner > GmbH wrote: >> Am 11.04.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Sage Weil: >>> ext4 has never been recommended, but we did test it. After Jewel is >>> out, we would like explicitly recommend *against* ext4 and stop >>> testing it. >> Hmmm. We're currently migrating away from xfs as we had some strange >> performance-issues which were resolved / got better by switching to >> ext4. We think this is related to our high number of objects (4358 >> Mobjects according to ceph -s). > It would be interesting to see on how this maps out to the OSDs/PGs. > I'd guess loads and loads of subdirectories per PG, which is probably where > Ext4 performs better than XFS. A simple ls -l takes "ages" on XFS while ext4 lists a directory immediately. According to our findings regarding XFS this seems to be "normal" behavior. pool name category KB objects data - 3240 2265521646 document_root - 577364 10150 images - 96197462245 2256616709 metadata - 1150105 35903724 queue - 542967346 173865 raw - 36875247450 13095410 total of 4736 pgs, 6 pools, 124 TB data, 4359 Mobjects What would you like to see? tree? du per Directory? As you can see we have one data-object in pool "data" per file saved somewhere else. I'm not sure what's this related to, but maybe this is a must by cephfs. -- Kind regards Michael Metz-Martini _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |