In my testing, using RBD-NBD is faster than using RBD or CephFS. For a MySQL/sysbench test using 25 threads using OLTP, using a 40G network between the client and Ceph, here are some of my results: Using ceph-rbd: transactions per sec: 8620 using ceph rbd-nbd: transaction per sec: 9359 using cephfs: transactions per sec: 7550 Rick > On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lazuardi Nasution <mrxlazuardin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm looking for pros and cons of mounting /var/lib/mysql with CephFS or RBD for getting best performance. MySQL save data as files on mostly configuration but the I/O is block access because the file is opened until MySQL down. This case give us both options for storing the data files. For RBD pros, please suggest the file system should be formatted on the mounted volume. > > Actually this case can happen on any database which stores the data as files. > > Best regards, > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |