Does fio handle S3 objects spread across many buckets well? I think
bucket listing performance was maybe missing too, but It's been a while
since I looked at fio's S3 support. Maybe they have those use cases
covered now. I wrote a go based benchmark called hsbench based on the
wasabi-tech benchmark a while back that tries to cover some of those
cases, but I haven't touched it in a while:
https://github.com/markhpc/hsbench
FWIW fio can be used for cephfs as well and it works reasonably well if
you give it a long enough run time and only expect hero run scenarios
from it. For metadata intensive workloads you'll need to use mdtest or
smallfile. At this point I mostly just use the io500 suite that
includes both ior for hero runs and mdtest for metadata (but you need
mpi to coordinate it across multiple nodes).
Mark
On 9/17/20 3:35 AM, George Shuklin wrote:
On 16/09/2020 07:26, Danni Setiawan wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to find performance penalty with OSD HDD when using WAL/DB
in faster device (SSD/NVMe) vs WAL/DB in same device (HDD) for
different workload (RBD, RGW with index bucket in SSD pool, and
CephFS with metadata in SSD pool). I want to know if giving up disk
slot for WAL/DB device is worth vs adding more OSD.
Unfortunately I cannot find the benchmark for these kind workload.
Has anyone ever done this benchmark?
For everything except CephFS, fio looks like a best tool for
benchmarking. It can benchmark ceph on all levels: rados, rbd,
http/S3. Moreover, it has excellent configuration options, detailed
metrics and it can run with multi-server workload (one fio client
forcing many fio servers to do benchmarking). The own fio performance
is at about 15M IOPS (null engine per fio-server), and it scales
horizontally.
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
