Why do you think the performance is slow? Compared to what? I have already mentioned here and on a ceph day, when are we (ceph community+redhat) going to put some benchmark tests out there. So people can compare and know what to expect. It would be also nice than in release notes to mention the measured difference or % performance increase, instead of just writing this is 'faster' or that is 'optimized'. I also think it is nice for the development/test team to have some testing clusters available so they can test more before releasing something. -----Original Message----- Subject: [ceph-users] poor cephFS performance on Nautilus 14.2.9 deployed by ceph_ansible 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(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io