Sorry for the delay. We used the default k=2 and m=1. Mohamad On 09/07/2017 06:22 PM, Christian Wuerdig wrote: > What type of EC config (k+m) was used if I may ask? > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Mohamad Gebai <mgebai@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> These numbers are probably not as detailed as you'd like, but it's >> something. They show the overhead of reading and/or writing to EC pools as >> compared to 3x replicated pools using 1, 2, 8 and 16 threads (single >> client): >> >> Rep EC Diff Slowdown >> IOPS IOPS >> Read >> 1 23,325 22,052 -5.46% 1.06 >> 2 27,261 27,147 -0.42% 1.00 >> 8 27,151 27,127 -0.09% 1.00 >> 16 26,793 26,728 -0.24% 1.00 >> Write >> 1 19,444 5,708 -70.64% 3.41 >> 2 23,902 5,395 -77.43% 4.43 >> 8 23,912 5,641 -76.41% 4.24 >> 16 24,587 5,643 -77.05% 4.36 >> RW >> 1 20,379 11,166 -45.21% 1.83 >> 2 34,246 9,525 -72.19% 3.60 >> 8 33,195 9,300 -71.98% 3.57 >> 16 31,641 9,762 -69.15% 3.24 >> >> This is on an all-SSD cluster, with 3 OSD nodes and Bluestore. Ceph version >> 12.1.0-671-g2c11b88d14 (2c11b88d14e64bf60c0556c6a4ec8c9eda36ff6a) luminous >> (rc). >> >> Mohamad >> >> >> On 09/06/2017 01:28 AM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> (Sorry if this shows up twice - I got auto-unsubscribed and so first attempt >> was blocked) >> >> I'm keen to read up on some performance comparisons for replication versus >> EC on HDD+SSD based setups. So far the only recent thing I've found is >> Sage's Vault17 slides [1], which have a single slide showing 3X / EC42 / >> EC51 for Kraken. I guess there is probably some of this data to be found in >> the performance meeting threads, but it's hard to know the currency of those >> (typically master or wip branch tests) with respect to releases. Can anyone >> point out any other references or highlight something that's coming? >> >> I'm sure there are piles of operators and architects out there at the moment >> wondering how they could and should reconfigure their clusters once upgraded >> to Luminous. A couple of things going around in my head at the moment: >> >> * We want to get to having the bulk of our online storage in CephFS on EC >> pool/s... >> *-- is overwrite performance on EC acceptable for near-line NAS use-cases? >> *-- recovery implications (currently recovery on our Jewel RGW EC83 pool is >> _way_ slower that 3X pools, what does this do to reliability? maybe split >> capacity into multiple pools if it helps to contain failure?) >> >> [1] >> https://www.slideshare.net/sageweil1/bluestore-a-new-storage-backend-for-ceph-one-year-in/37 >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> ~Blairo >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |