Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

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

 




On 17/09/2020 19:21, vitalif@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
  RBD in fact doesn't benefit much from the WAL/DB partition alone because Bluestore never does more writes per second than HDD can do on average (it flushes every 32 writes to the HDD). For RBD, the best thing is bcache.

rbd will benefit: for each write data iop, there could be a metada read iop (unless it is cached) + a write iop, so taking these extra metadata iops away from the hdd will make a difference for small block sizes. Even for data flushes (not sure if it is 32 or 64) if the data is not totally random, the io scheduler for the hdd (cfq or deadline) will either merge blocks or order them in a way which can sustain higher client iops.

we did test dm-cache, bcache and dm-writecache, we found the later to be much better.

/Maged



Just try to fill up your OSDs up to a decent point to see the difference because a lot of objects means a lot of metadata and when there's a lot of metadata it stops fitting in cache. The performance and the performance difference will also depend on whether your HDDs have internal SSD/media cache (a lot of them do even if you're unaware of it).

+1 for hsbench, just be careful and use my repo https://github.com/vitalif/hsbench because the original has at least 2 bugs for now:
1) it only reads first 64KB when benchmarking GETs
2) it reads objects sequentially instead of reading them randomly

The first one actually has a fix waiting to be merged in a someone's pull request, the second is my fix, I can submit a PR later.

Yes, I agree that there are many knob for fine tuning Ceph performance.
The problem is we don't have data which workload that benefit most from
WAL/DB in SSD vs in same spinning drive and by how much. Does it really
help in a cluster that mostly for object storage/RGW? Or may be just
block storage/RBD workload that benefit most?

IMHO, I think we need some cost-benefit analysis from this because the
cost placing WAL/DB in SSD is quite noticeable (multiple OSD would be
fail when SSD fail and capacity reduced).
_______________________________________________
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



[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