From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Mueller Subject: Re: simple performance tests Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:35:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4C18A8E4.2070109@chaschperli.ch> References: <1276681775.2492.3.camel@wido-laptop.pcextreme.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from trillian.muellerit.ch ([83.169.22.129]:49359 "EHLO trillian.muellerit.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752821Ab0FPKnh (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:43:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1276681775.2492.3.camel@wido-laptop.pcextreme.nl> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wido den Hollander Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 16.06.2010 11:49, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Hi, > > You were running all the Ceph components on the same host? E.g, mon, mds > and osd on the same machine? yes, all on one. > > Imho that is not the way to test Ceph. of course this is not the inteded use uf ceph. i wanted to know the performance penalty between local access and access with ceph. didn't expect it to be that large (it's also huge with samba - so not a ceph specific "problem"). i'll do more testing in the next weeks in a more ceph-apropriate envirnoment. maybe also comparing to glusterfs. > > I've done some benchmarking myself with 6 physical machines for OSD's > (different hw in each machine) and i was seeing about 30 ~ 40MB/sec over > a Gigabit network. what was the workload involved with your benchmarking? if these are large writes or reads then 30-40mb/s are IMHO not what i would expect of 6xGigE (6x80MB/s). I would expect the GigE port of the client to be the bottleneck. > Try benchmarking Ceph against NFS and you will start seeing different > results. > thats why i've included samba in the mix. i wanted nfs but it crashed the machine (heard about nfs problems in 2.6.32). samba wins all the "competitions" in samba vs. ceph. - Thomas