From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Subject: Re: RBD vs RADOS benchmark performance Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:10:37 +0200 Message-ID: <5191026D.4030004@itooo.com> References: <518D2B76.9040706@itooo.com> <1368423516.6771.2.camel@localhost> <5190DBD9.9070500@itooo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org Sender: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org To: Gandalf Corvotempesta Cc: "ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , ceph-users-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org Le 13/05/2013 17:01, Gandalf Corvotempesta a =E9crit : > 2013/5/13 Greg : >> thanks a lot for pointing this out, it indeed makes a *huge* difference ! >>> # dd if=3D/mnt/t/1 of=3D/dev/zero bs=3D4M count=3D100 >>> >>> 100+0 records in >>> 100+0 records out >>> 419430400 bytes (419 MB) copied, 5.12768 s, 81.8 MB/s >> (caches dropped before each test of course) > What if you set 1024 or greater value ? > Is bandwidth relative to the read ahead size? Setting the value too high degrades performance, especially random IO = performance. You have to determine the right choice for your usage. Cheers,