Am 08.11.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Kees Meijs:
> Hi,
>
> As promised, our findings so far:
>
> * For the time being, the new scrubbing parameters work well.
Which parameters do you refer to? Currently we're on hammer.
> * Using CFQ for spinners and NOOP voor SSD seems to spread load over
> the storage cluster a little better than deadline does. However,
> overall latency seems (just a feeling, no numbers there) a little
> higher.
This one is a one that has spindles and already runs with CFQ and:
osd_disk_thread_ioprio_class = idle
osd_disk_thread_ioprio_priority = 3
Greets,
Stefan
>
> Cheers,
> Kees
>
> On 28-10-16 15:37, Kees Meijs wrote:
>>
>> Interesting... We're now running using deadline. In other posts I read
>> about noop for SSDs instead of CFQ.
>>
>> Since we're using spinners with SSD journals; does it make since to
>> mix the scheduler? E.g. CFG for spinners _and_ noop for SSD?
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
