On 1/9/20 2:27 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > Hi Wido, > Am 09.01.20 um 14:18 schrieb Wido den Hollander: >> >> >> On 1/9/20 2:07 PM, Daniel Aberger - Profihost AG wrote: >>> >>> Am 09.01.20 um 13:39 schrieb Janne Johansson: >>>> >>>> I'm currently trying to workout a concept for a ceph cluster which can >>>> be used as a target for backups which satisfies the following >>>> requirements: >>>> >>>> - approx. write speed of 40.000 IOP/s and 2500 Mbyte/s >>>> >>>> >>>> You might need to have a large (at least non-1) number of writers to get >>>> to that sum of operations, as opposed to trying to reach it with one >>>> single stream written from one single client. >>> >>> >>> We are aiming for about 100 writers. >> >> So if I read it correctly the writes will be 64k each. > > may be ;-) see below > >> That should be doable, but you probably want something like NVMe for DB+WAL. >> >> You might want to tune that larger writes also go into the WAL to speed >> up the ingress writes. But you mainly want more spindles then less. > > I would like to give a little bit more insight about this and most > probobly some overhead we currently have in those numbers. Those values > come from our old classic raid storage boxes. Those use btrfs + zlib > compression + subvolumes for those backups and we've collected those > numbers from all of them. > > The new system should just replicate snapshots from the live ceph. > Hopefully being able to use Erase Coding and compression? ;-) > Compression might work, but only if the data is compressable. EC usually writes very fast, so that's good. I would recommend a lot of spindles those. More spindles == more OSDs == more performance. So instead of using 12TB drives you can consider 6TB or 8TB drives. Wido > Greets, > Stefan > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |