Re: RBD with PWL cache shows poor performance compared to cache device

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

 



On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:50 AM Matthew Booth <mbooth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What do you mean by saturated here? FWIW I was using the default cache
> size of 1G and each test run only wrote ~100MB of data, so I don't
> think I ever filled the cache, even with multiple runs.

Ah, my apologies - I saw that fio had been invoked in time-based mode
and assumed it was exceeding the pwl size, but doing the math on the
latency and block size, you should be fine. You're right, I wouldn't
expect that you would be filling the pwl cache, and thus the results
you are getting are Not Good(tm).

Josh
_______________________________________________
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