Was there not some issue a while ago that was related to a kernel setting? Because I can remember doing some tests that ceph-fuse was always slower than the kernel module. -----Original Message----- From: Marc Roos Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2018 12:37 To: ceph-users; ifedotov Subject: Re: Cephfs slow 6MB/s and rados bench sort of ok. I was not trying to compare the test results I know they are different. I am showing that reading is slow on cephfs (I am doing an rsync to cephfs and I assumed that rsync is just reading the file in a similar way) And cluster is sort of in same ok state. Meanwhile I did similar test with ceph-fuse, and getting what I am used to. [@c04 folder]# dd if=file1 of=/dev/null status=progress 12305+1 records in 12305+1 records out 6300206 bytes (6.3 MB) copied, 0.100237 s, 62.9 MB/s [@c04 folder]# dd if=file2 of=/dev/null status=progress 3116352000 bytes (3.1 GB) copied, 29.143809 s, 107 MB/ss 6209378+1 records in 6209378+1 records out 3179201945 bytes (3.2 GB) copied, 29.7547 s, 107 MB/s -----Original Message----- From: Igor Fedotov [mailto:ifedotov@xxxxxxx] Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2018 11:59 To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Cephfs slow 6MB/s and rados bench sort of ok. Hi Marc, In general dd isn't the best choice for benchmarking. In you case there are at least 3 differences from rados bench : 1)If I haven't missed something then you're comparing reads vs. writes 2) Block Size is difference ( 512 bytes for dd vs . 4M for rados bench) 3) Just a single dd instance vs. 16 concurrent threads for rados bench. Thanks, Igor On 8/28/2018 12:50 PM, Marc Roos wrote: > I have a idle test cluster (centos7.5, Linux c04 > 3.10.0-862.9.1.el7.x86_64), and a client kernel mount cephfs. > > I tested reading a few files on this cephfs mount and get very low > results compared to the rados bench. What could be the issue here? > > [@client folder]# dd if=5GB.img of=/dev/null status=progress 954585600 > bytes (955 MB) copied, 157.455633 s, 6.1 MB/s > > > > I included this is rados bench that shows sort of that cluster > performance is sort of as expected. > [@c01 ~]# rados bench -p fs_data 10 write hints = 1 Maintaining 16 > concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size > 4194304 for up to 10 seconds or 0 objects Object prefix: > benchmark_data_c01_453883 > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg > lat(s) > 0 0 0 0 0 0 - > 0 > 1 16 58 42 167.967 168 0.252071 > 0.323443 > 2 16 106 90 179.967 192 0.583383 > 0.324867 > 3 16 139 123 163.973 132 0.170865 > 0.325976 > 4 16 183 167 166.975 176 0.413676 > 0.361364 > 5 16 224 208 166.374 164 0.394369 > 0.365956 > 6 16 254 238 158.642 120 0.698396 > 0.382729 > 7 16 278 262 149.692 96 0.120742 > 0.397625 > 8 16 317 301 150.478 156 0.786822 > 0.411193 > 9 16 360 344 152.867 172 0.601956 > 0.411577 > 10 16 403 387 154.778 172 0.20342 > 0.404114 > Total time run: 10.353683 > Total writes made: 404 > Write size: 4194304 > Object size: 4194304 > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 156.08 > Stddev Bandwidth: 29.5778 > Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 192 > Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 96 > Average IOPS: 39 > Stddev IOPS: 7 > Max IOPS: 48 > Min IOPS: 24 > Average Latency(s): 0.409676 > Stddev Latency(s): 0.243565 > Max latency(s): 1.25028 > Min latency(s): 0.0830112 > Cleaning up (deleting benchmark objects) Removed 404 objects Clean up > completed and total clean up time :0.867185 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |