I was testing with appending mailbox files. But the principle of getting data from a mds server that has almost everything in cache instead of reading this from different osd's I would assume is always faster. > > 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. > > > 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
 |