That is odd- I am running some game servers (ARK Survival) and the RBD mount starts up in less than a minute, but the CEPHFS mount takes 20 minutes or more. It probably depends on the workload. -----Original Message----- From: Marc <Marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:50 PM To: Jorge Garcia <jgarcia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; ceph-users@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: cephfs vs rbd > I was wondering about performance differences between cephfs and rbd, > so I deviced this quick test. The results were pretty surprising to me. > > The test: on a very idle machine, make 2 mounts. One is a cephfs > mount, the other an rbd mount. In each directory, copy a humongous > .tgz file > (1.5 TB) and try to untar the file into the directory. The untar on > the cephfs directory took slightly over 2 hours, but on the rbd > directory it took almost a whole day. I repeated the test 3 times and > the results were similar each time. Is there something I'm missing? Is > RBD that much slower than cephfs (or is cephfs that much faster than > RBD)? Are there any tuning options I can try to improve RBD performance? > When I was testing between using cephfs or rbd in a vm, I noticed that cephfs was around 25% faster, was on Luminous. _______________________________________________ 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
 |