Awesome, thanks for the info! By any chance, do you happen to know what configurations you needed to adjust to make Veeam perform a bit better? On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:42 AM Anthony D'Atri <aad@dreamsnake.net> wrote:
Yes, with someone I did some consulting for. Veeam seems to be one of the prevalent uses for ceph-iscsi, though I'd try to use the native RBD client instead if possible.
Veeam appears by default to store really tiny blocks, so there's a lot of protocol overhead. I understand that Veeam can be configured to use "large blocks" that can make a distinct difference.
On Jun 23, 2023, at 09:33, Work Ceph <work.ceph.user.mailing@gmail.com> wrote:
Great question!
Yes, one of the slowness was detected in a Veeam setup. Have you experienced that before?
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:32 AM Anthony D'Atri <aad@dreamsnake.net> wrote:
Are you using Veeam by chance?
On Jun 22, 2023, at 21:18, Work Ceph <work.ceph.user.mailing@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello guys,
We have a Ceph cluster that runs just fine with Ceph Octopus; we use RBD for some workloads, RadosGW (via S3) for others, and iSCSI for some Windows clients.
We started noticing some unexpected performance issues with iSCSI. I mean, an SSD pool is reaching 100MB of write speed for an image, when it can reach up to 600MB+ of write speed for the same image when mounted and consumed directly via RBD.
Is that performance degradation expected? We would expect some degradation, but not as much as this one.
Also, we have a question regarding the use of Intel Turbo boost. Should we disable it? Is it possible that the root cause of the slowness in the iSCSI GW is caused by the use of Intel Turbo boost feature, which reduces the clock of some cores?
Any feedback is much appreciated. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io