Re: poor cephFS performance on Nautilus 14.2.9 deployed by ceph_ansible
Hi guys, I tried to mount via kernel driver, it works beautifully. I was surprised, below is one of the FIO test, which wasn't able to run at all in FUSE mount: # /usr/bin/fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=FIO --filename=fio.test --bs=4M --iodepth=16 --size=50G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 FIO: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096KiB-4096KiB, (W) 4096KiB-4096KiB, (T) 4096KiB-4096KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=16 fio-3.7 Starting 1 process FIO: Laying out IO file (1 file / 51200MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=1021MiB/s,w=340MiB/s][r=255,w=85 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] FIO: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=131431: Thu Jun 11 17:13:22 2020 read: IOPS=249, BW=999MiB/s (1047MB/s)(37.5GiB/38408msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=819200, max=1171456, per=100.00%, avg=1023387.46, stdev=69360.06, samples=76 iops : min= 200, max= 286, avg=249.83, stdev=16.96, samples=76 write: IOPS=83, BW=334MiB/s (351MB/s)(12.5GiB/38408msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=229376, max=475136, per=99.96%, avg=342204.45, stdev=40407.55, samples=76 iops : min= 56, max= 116, avg=83.51, stdev= 9.87, samples=76 cpu : usr=1.56%, sys=4.44%, ctx=12050, majf=0, minf=24 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=99.9%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=9590,3210,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=16 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=999MiB/s (1047MB/s), 999MiB/s-999MiB/s (1047MB/s-1047MB/s), io=37.5GiB (40.2GB), run=38408-38408msec WRITE: bw=334MiB/s (351MB/s), 334MiB/s-334MiB/s (351MB/s-351MB/s), io=12.5GiB (13.5GB), run=38408-38408msec On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:16 PM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
Hi Derrick,
I am not sure what this 200-300MB/s on hdd is. But it is probably not really relevant. I am testing native disk performance before I use them with ceph with this fio script. It is a bit lengthy, that is because I want to be able to have data for possible future use cases.
Furthermore since I upgraded to Nautilus I have been having issues with the kernel mount cephfs on osd nodes and had to revert back to fuse. Even when having 88GB free memory.
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/45663 https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/44100
[global] ioengine=libaio #ioengine=posixaio invalidate=1 ramp_time=30 iodepth=1 runtime=180 time_based direct=1 filename=/dev/sdX #filename=/mnt/cephfs/ssd/fio-bench.img
[write-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-read-seq.results
[randread-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randread-seq.results
[rw-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randrw-seq.results
[write-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-read-seq.results
[randread-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randread-seq.results
[rw-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randrw-seq.results
[write-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-read-seq.results
[randread-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randread-seq.results
[rw-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randrw-seq.results
[write-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-read-seq.results
[randread-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randread-seq.results
[rw-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randrw-seq.results
-----Original Message----- From: Derrick Lin [mailto:klin938@gmail.com] Sent: dinsdag 9 juni 2020 4:12 To: Mark Nelson Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] Re: poor cephFS performance on Nautilus 14.2.9 deployed by ceph_ansible
Thanks Mark & Marc
We will do more testing inc kernel client as well as testing the block storage performance first.
We just did some direct raw performance test on a single spinning disk (format as ext4) and it could delivery 200-300MB/s throughput in various writing and mix testings. But FUSE client could only give ~50MB/s.
Cheers, D
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:27 PM Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote:
Try using the kernel client instead of the FUSE client. The FUSE client is known to be slow for a variety of reasons and I suspect you may see faster performance with the kernel client.
Thanks,
Mark
On 6/2/20 8:00 PM, Derrick Lin wrote:
Hi guys,
We just deployed a CEPH 14.2.9 cluster with the following hardware:
MDSS x 1 Xeon Gold 5122 3.6Ghz 192GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE
MON x 3 Xeon Bronze 3103 1.7Ghz 48GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE 6 x 600GB 10K SAS
OSD x 5 Xeon Silver 4110 2.1Ghz x 2 192GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE 16 x 10TB 7.2K NLSAS (block) 2 x 2TB Intel P4600 NVMe (block.db)
Network is all Mellanox SN2410/SN2700 configured at 25GbE for both front and back network.
Just for POC at this stage, the cluster was deployed by ceph_ansible
without much customization and the initial test on its cephFS FUSE mount performance seems to be very low. We did some test with iozone
the result as follow:
]# /opt/iozone/bin/iozone -i 0 -i 1-r 128k -s 5G -t 20 Iozone: Performance Test of File I/O Version $Revision: 3.465 $ Compiled for 64 bit mode. Build: linux-AMD64
Contributors:William Norcott, Don Capps, Isom Crawford, Kirby Collins Al Slater, Scott Rhine, Mike Wisner, Ken Goss Steve Landherr, Brad Smith, Mark Kelly, Dr. Alain CYR, Randy Dunlap, Mark Montague, Dan Million, Gavin Brebner, Jean-Marc Zucconi, Jeff Blomberg, Benny Halevy, Dave Boone, Erik Habbinga, Kris Strecker, Walter Wong, Joshua Root, Fabrice Bacchella, Zhenghua Xue, Qin Li, Darren Sawyer, Vangel Bojaxhi, Ben England, Vikentsi Lapa, Alexey Skidanov.
Run began: Tue Jun 2 16:40:53 2020
File size set to 5242880 kB Command line used: /opt/iozone/bin/iozone -i 0 -i 1-r -s 5G
-t 20 128k Output is in kBytes/sec Time Resolution = 0.000001 seconds. Processor cache size set to 1024 kBytes. Processor cache line size set to 32 bytes. File stride size set to 17 * record size. Throughput test with 20 processes Each process writes a 5242880 kByte file in 4 kByte records
Children see throughput for 20 initial writers = 35001.12 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 initial writers = 34967.65 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 1748.22 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 1751.62 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 1750.06 kB/sec Min xfer = 5232724.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 rewriters = 35704.79 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 rewriters = 35704.30 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 1783.44 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 1786.29 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 1785.24 kB/sec Min xfer = 5234532.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 readers = 49368539.50 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 readers = 49317231.38 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 2414424.00 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 2599996.25 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 2468426.98 kB/sec Min xfer = 4868708.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 re-readers = 48675891.50 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 re-readers = 48617335.67 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 2316395.25 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 2703868.75 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 2433794.58 kB/sec Min xfer = 4491704.00 kB
We also did some dd tests, the write speed on a single test on our standard server is ~50MB/s but on a very big memory server, the speed is double ~ 80-90MB/s.
We have zero experience on ceph and as said we haven't done more tuning at this stage. But if this sort of performance is way too low from those hardware spec?
Any hints will be appreciated.
Cheers D _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
I have encountered an issue on clients hanging on by opening a file. Besides, any other client who visited the same file or directory hung as well. The only way to resolve it is rebooting the clients server. This happened on kernel client only, Luminous version. After that I chose fuse client except the client has large performance need. Derrick Lin <klin938@gmail.com> 于2020年6月15日周一 下午3:28写道：
Hi guys,
I tried to mount via kernel driver, it works beautifully. I was surprised, below is one of the FIO test, which wasn't able to run at all in FUSE mount:
# /usr/bin/fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=FIO --filename=fio.test --bs=4M --iodepth=16 --size=50G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 FIO: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096KiB-4096KiB, (W) 4096KiB-4096KiB, (T) 4096KiB-4096KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=16 fio-3.7 Starting 1 process FIO: Laying out IO file (1 file / 51200MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=1021MiB/s,w=340MiB/s][r=255,w=85 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] FIO: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=131431: Thu Jun 11 17:13:22 2020 read: IOPS=249, BW=999MiB/s (1047MB/s)(37.5GiB/38408msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=819200, max=1171456, per=100.00%, avg=1023387.46, stdev=69360.06, samples=76 iops : min= 200, max= 286, avg=249.83, stdev=16.96, samples=76 write: IOPS=83, BW=334MiB/s (351MB/s)(12.5GiB/38408msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=229376, max=475136, per=99.96%, avg=342204.45, stdev=40407.55, samples=76 iops : min= 56, max= 116, avg=83.51, stdev= 9.87, samples=76 cpu : usr=1.56%, sys=4.44%, ctx=12050, majf=0, minf=24 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=99.9%, 32=0.0%,
=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, =64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, =64=0.0% issued rwts: total=9590,3210,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=16
Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=999MiB/s (1047MB/s), 999MiB/s-999MiB/s (1047MB/s-1047MB/s), io=37.5GiB (40.2GB), run=38408-38408msec WRITE: bw=334MiB/s (351MB/s), 334MiB/s-334MiB/s (351MB/s-351MB/s), io=12.5GiB (13.5GB), run=38408-38408msec
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:16 PM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
Hi Derrick,
I am not sure what this 200-300MB/s on hdd is. But it is probably not really relevant. I am testing native disk performance before I use them with ceph with this fio script. It is a bit lengthy, that is because I want to be able to have data for possible future use cases.
Furthermore since I upgraded to Nautilus I have been having issues with the kernel mount cephfs on osd nodes and had to revert back to fuse. Even when having 88GB free memory.
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/45663 https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/44100
[global] ioengine=libaio #ioengine=posixaio invalidate=1 ramp_time=30 iodepth=1 runtime=180 time_based direct=1 filename=/dev/sdX #filename=/mnt/cephfs/ssd/fio-bench.img
[write-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-read-seq.results
[randread-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randread-seq.results
[rw-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-4k-seq] stonewall bs=4k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-4k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4k-randrw-seq.results
[write-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-read-seq.results
[randread-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randread-seq.results
[rw-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-128k-seq] stonewall bs=128k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-128k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-128k-randrw-seq.results
[write-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-read-seq.results
[randread-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randread-seq.results
[rw-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-1024k-seq] stonewall bs=1024k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-1024k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-1024k-randrw-seq.results
[write-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=write #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-write-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-write-seq.results
[randwrite-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randwrite #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randwrite-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randwrite-seq.results
[read-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=read #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-read-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-read-seq.results
[randread-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randread #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randread-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randread-seq.results
[rw-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=rw #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-rw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-rw-seq.results
[randrw-4096k-seq] stonewall bs=4096k rw=randrw #write_bw_log=sdx-4096k-randrw-seq.results #write_iops_log=sdx-4096k-randrw-seq.results
-----Original Message----- From: Derrick Lin [mailto:klin938@gmail.com] Sent: dinsdag 9 juni 2020 4:12 To: Mark Nelson Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] Re: poor cephFS performance on Nautilus 14.2.9 deployed by ceph_ansible
Thanks Mark & Marc
We will do more testing inc kernel client as well as testing the block storage performance first.
We just did some direct raw performance test on a single spinning disk (format as ext4) and it could delivery 200-300MB/s throughput in various writing and mix testings. But FUSE client could only give ~50MB/s.
Cheers, D
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:27 PM Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote:
Try using the kernel client instead of the FUSE client. The FUSE client is known to be slow for a variety of reasons and I suspect you may see faster performance with the kernel client.
Thanks,
Mark
On 6/2/20 8:00 PM, Derrick Lin wrote:
Hi guys,
We just deployed a CEPH 14.2.9 cluster with the following hardware:
MDSS x 1 Xeon Gold 5122 3.6Ghz 192GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE
MON x 3 Xeon Bronze 3103 1.7Ghz 48GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE 6 x 600GB 10K SAS
OSD x 5 Xeon Silver 4110 2.1Ghz x 2 192GB Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 25GbE 16 x 10TB 7.2K NLSAS (block) 2 x 2TB Intel P4600 NVMe (block.db)
Network is all Mellanox SN2410/SN2700 configured at 25GbE for both front and back network.
Just for POC at this stage, the cluster was deployed by ceph_ansible
without much customization and the initial test on its cephFS FUSE mount performance seems to be very low. We did some test with iozone
the result as follow:
]# /opt/iozone/bin/iozone -i 0 -i 1-r 128k -s 5G -t 20 Iozone: Performance Test of File I/O Version $Revision: 3.465 $ Compiled for 64 bit mode. Build: linux-AMD64
Contributors:William Norcott, Don Capps, Isom Crawford, Kirby Collins Al Slater, Scott Rhine, Mike Wisner, Ken Goss Steve Landherr, Brad Smith, Mark Kelly, Dr. Alain CYR, Randy Dunlap, Mark Montague, Dan Million, Gavin Brebner, Jean-Marc Zucconi, Jeff Blomberg, Benny Halevy, Dave Boone, Erik Habbinga, Kris Strecker, Walter Wong, Joshua Root, Fabrice Bacchella, Zhenghua Xue, Qin Li, Darren Sawyer, Vangel Bojaxhi, Ben England, Vikentsi Lapa, Alexey Skidanov.
Run began: Tue Jun 2 16:40:53 2020
File size set to 5242880 kB Command line used: /opt/iozone/bin/iozone -i 0 -i 1-r -s 5G
-t 20 128k Output is in kBytes/sec Time Resolution = 0.000001 seconds. Processor cache size set to 1024 kBytes. Processor cache line size set to 32 bytes. File stride size set to 17 * record size. Throughput test with 20 processes Each process writes a 5242880 kByte file in 4 kByte records
Children see throughput for 20 initial writers = 35001.12 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 initial writers = 34967.65 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 1748.22 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 1751.62 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 1750.06 kB/sec Min xfer = 5232724.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 rewriters = 35704.79 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 rewriters = 35704.30 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 1783.44 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 1786.29 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 1785.24 kB/sec Min xfer = 5234532.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 readers = 49368539.50 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 readers = 49317231.38 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 2414424.00 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 2599996.25 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 2468426.98 kB/sec Min xfer = 4868708.00 kB
Children see throughput for 20 re-readers = 48675891.50 kB/sec Parent sees throughput for 20 re-readers = 48617335.67 kB/sec Min throughput per process = 2316395.25 kB/sec Max throughput per process = 2703868.75 kB/sec Avg throughput per process = 2433794.58 kB/sec Min xfer = 4491704.00 kB
We also did some dd tests, the write speed on a single test on our standard server is ~50MB/s but on a very big memory server, the speed is double ~ 80-90MB/s.
We have zero experience on ceph and as said we haven't done more tuning at this stage. But if this sort of performance is way too low from those hardware spec?
Any hints will be appreciated.
Cheers D _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
participants (2)
-
Derrick Lin
-
Zhenshi Zhou