All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrei Mikhailovsky <andrei-930XJYlnu5nQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Nelson <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org,
	ceph-devel <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance	comparison
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:08:22 +0000 (GMT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <413428.1082.1424272098009.JavaMail.andrei@tuchka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1925 bytes --]

Mark, many thanks for your effort and ceph performance tests. This puts things in perspective. 

Looking at the results, I was a bit concerned that the IOPs performance in niether releases come even marginally close to the capabilities of the underlying ssd device. Even the fastest PCI ssds have only managed to achieve about the 1/6th IOPs of the raw device. 

I guess there is a great deal more optimisations to be done in the upcoming LTS releases to make the IOPs rate close to the raw device performance. 

I have done some testing in the past and noticed that despite the server having a lot of unused resources (about 40-50% server idle and about 60-70% ssd idle) the ceph would not perform well when used with ssds. I was testing with Firefly + auth and my IOPs rate was around the 3K mark. Something is holding ceph back from performing well with ssds ((( 

Andrei 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> To: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 February, 2015 5:37:01 PM
> Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore
> performance comparison

> Hi All,

> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to
> look
> at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS
> releases.
> This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also
> doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just
> a
> first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors
> folks
> on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I
> hope you find it useful.

> Mark

> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2547 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-02-18 15:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-17 17:37 Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Mark Nelson
2015-02-17 20:16 ` [ceph-users] " Stephen Hindle
     [not found]   ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-17 20:24     ` Tyler Brekke
2015-02-17 20:25     ` Karan Singh
2015-02-17 20:28   ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson
2015-02-17 20:30     ` Stephen Hindle
     [not found] ` <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv>
2015-02-18  8:34   ` Alexandre DERUMIER
     [not found]     ` <1298645585.1174612.1424248460594.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-18 14:56       ` Mark Nelson
     [not found]         ` <1106171324.1261740.1424278497950.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-18 16:57           ` Alexandre DERUMIER
     [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-17 18:07   ` Irek Fasikhov
2015-02-18 15:08   ` Andrei Mikhailovsky [this message]
2015-02-18 15:44     ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson
2015-02-23  5:09 ` Gregory Farnum
2015-02-23  5:34   ` Haomai Wang
2015-02-23 14:46   ` Mark Nelson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=413428.1082.1424272098009.JavaMail.andrei@tuchka \
    --to=andrei-930xjylnu5nqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.