Re: BlueStore wal vs. db size

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 08/15/2018 06:15 PM, Robert Stanford wrote:
> 
>  The workload is relatively high read/write of objects through radosgw. 
> Gbps+ in both directions.  The OSDs are spinning disks, the journals (up
> until now filestore) are on SSDs.  Four OSDs / journal disk.
> 

RGW isn't always a heavy enough workload for this. It depends on your
choice. I've deployed many RGW-only workloads without WAL+DB and it
works fine.

RBD is a perfect use-case which needs very low (<10ms) write latency and
that's not always the case with RGW.

Just having the WAL on a SSD device can also help.

Keep in mind that the 'journal' doesn't apply anymore with BlueStore.
That was a FileStore thing.

Wido

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:wido@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 08/15/2018 05:57 PM, Robert Stanford wrote:
>     > 
>     >  Thank you Wido.  I don't want to make any assumptions so let me verify,
>     > that's 10GB of DB per 1TB storage on that OSD alone, right?  So if I
>     > have 4 OSDs sharing the same SSD journal, each 1TB, there are 4 10 GB DB
>     > partitions for each?
>     > 
> 
>     Yes, that is correct.
> 
>     Each OSD needs 10GB/1TB of storage of DB. So size your SSD according to
>     your storage needs.
> 
>     However, it depends on the workload if you need to offload WAL+DB to a
>     SSD. What is the workload?
> 
>     Wido
> 
>     > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxx <mailto:wido@xxxxxxxx>
>     > <mailto:wido@xxxxxxxx <mailto:wido@xxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     >     On 08/15/2018 04:17 AM, Robert Stanford wrote:
>     >     > I am keeping the wal and db for a ceph cluster on an SSD.  I am using
>     >     > the masif_bluestore_block_db_size / masif_bluestore_block_wal_size
>     >     > parameters in ceph.conf to specify how big they should be.  Should these
>     >     > values be the same, or should one be much larger than the other?
>     >     > 
>     > 
>     >     This has been answered multiple times on this mailinglist in the last
>     >     months, a bit of searching would have helped.
>     > 
>     >     Nevertheless, 1GB for the WAL is sufficient and then allocate about 10GB
>     >     of DB per TB of storage. That should be enough in most use cases.
>     > 
>     >     Now, if you can spare more DB space, do so!
>     > 
>     >     Wido
>     > 
>     >     >  R
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > ceph-users mailing list
>     >     > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     >     > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>     <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
>     >     <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>     <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




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux