>>For crucial, I'll try to apply the patch from stefan priebe, to ignore >>flushes (as crucial m550 have supercaps) >>http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-November/035707.html Here the results, disable cache flush
crucial m550 ------------ #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 bw=177575KB/s, iops=44393 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderum...@odiso.com> À: "Cedric Lemarchand" <ced...@yipikai.org> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Septembre 2014 04:55:21 Objet: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K IOPS Hi, seem that intel s3500 perform a lot better with o_dsync crucial m550 ------------ #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 bw=1249.9KB/s, iops=312 intel s3500 ----------- fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 #bw=41794KB/s, iops=10448 ok, so 30x faster. For crucial, I have try to apply the patch from stefan priebe, to ignore flushes (as crucial m550 have supercaps) http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-November/035707.html Coming from zfs, this sound like "zfs_nocacheflush" Now results: crucial m550 ------------ #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 bw=177575KB/s, iops=44393 fio rbd crucial m550 1 osd 0.85 (osd_enable_op_tracker true or false, same result): --------------------------- bw=12327KB/s, iops=3081 So no much better than before, but this time, iostat show only 15% utils, and latencies are lower Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util sdb 0,00 29,00 0,00 3075,00 0,00 36748,50 23,90 0,29 0,10 0,00 0,10 0,05 15,20 So, the write bottleneck seem to be in ceph. I will send s3500 result today ----- Mail original ----- De: "Cedric Lemarchand" <ced...@yipikai.org> À: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 21:23:23 Objet: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K IOPS Le 11/09/2014 19:33, Cedric Lemarchand a écrit : > Le 11/09/2014 08:20, Alexandre DERUMIER a écrit : >> Hi Sebastien, >> >> here my first results with crucial m550 (I'll send result with intel s3500 >> later): >> >> - 3 nodes >> - dell r620 without expander backplane >> - sas controller : lsi LSI 9207 (no hardware raid or cache) >> - 2 x E5-2603v2 1.8GHz (4cores) >> - 32GB ram >> - network : 2xgigabit link lacp + 2xgigabit lacp for cluster replication. >> >> -os : debian wheezy, with kernel 3.10 >> >> os + ceph mon : 2x intel s3500 100gb linux soft raid >> osd : crucial m550 (1TB). >> >> >> 3mon in the ceph cluster, >> and 1 osd (journal and datas on same disk) >> >> >> ceph.conf >> --------- >> debug_lockdep = 0/0 >> debug_context = 0/0 >> debug_crush = 0/0 >> debug_buffer = 0/0 >> debug_timer = 0/0 >> debug_filer = 0/0 >> debug_objecter = 0/0 >> debug_rados = 0/0 >> debug_rbd = 0/0 >> debug_journaler = 0/0 >> debug_objectcatcher = 0/0 >> debug_client = 0/0 >> debug_osd = 0/0 >> debug_optracker = 0/0 >> debug_objclass = 0/0 >> debug_filestore = 0/0 >> debug_journal = 0/0 >> debug_ms = 0/0 >> debug_monc = 0/0 >> debug_tp = 0/0 >> debug_auth = 0/0 >> debug_finisher = 0/0 >> debug_heartbeatmap = 0/0 >> debug_perfcounter = 0/0 >> debug_asok = 0/0 >> debug_throttle = 0/0 >> debug_mon = 0/0 >> debug_paxos = 0/0 >> debug_rgw = 0/0 >> osd_op_threads = 5 >> filestore_op_threads = 4 >> >> ms_nocrc = true >> cephx sign messages = false >> cephx require signatures = false >> >> ms_dispatch_throttle_bytes = 0 >> >> #0.85 >> throttler_perf_counter = false >> filestore_fd_cache_size = 64 >> filestore_fd_cache_shards = 32 >> osd_op_num_threads_per_shard = 1 >> osd_op_num_shards = 25 >> osd_enable_op_tracker = true >> >> >> >> Fio disk 4K benchmark >> ------------------ >> rand read 4k : fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randread --bs=4k >> --iodepth=32 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=abc --ioengine=aio >> bw=271755KB/s, iops=67938 >> >> rand write 4k : fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k >> --iodepth=32 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=abc --ioengine=aio >> bw=228293KB/s, iops=57073 >> >> >> >> fio osd benchmark (through librbd) >> ---------------------------------- >> [global] >> ioengine=rbd >> clientname=admin >> pool=test >> rbdname=test >> invalidate=0 # mandatory >> rw=randwrite >> rw=randread >> bs=4k >> direct=1 >> numjobs=4 >> group_reporting=1 >> >> [rbd_iodepth32] >> iodepth=32 >> >> >> >> FIREFLY RESULTS >> ---------------- >> fio randwrite : bw=5009.6KB/s, iops=1252 >> >> fio randread: bw=37820KB/s, iops=9455 >> >> >> >> O.85 RESULTS >> ------------ >> >> fio randwrite : bw=11658KB/s, iops=2914 >> >> fio randread : bw=38642KB/s, iops=9660 >> >> >> >> 0.85 + osd_enable_op_tracker=false >> ----------------------------------- >> fio randwrite : bw=11630KB/s, iops=2907 >> fio randread : bw=80606KB/s, iops=20151, (cpu 100% - GREAT !) >> >> >> >> So, for read, seem that osd_enable_op_tracker is the bottleneck. >> >> >> Now for write, I really don't understand why it's so low. >> >> >> I have done some iostat: >> >> >> FIO directly on /dev/sdb >> bw=228293KB/s, iops=57073 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await >> w_await svctm %util >> sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 63613,00 0,00 254452,00 8,00 31,24 0,49 0,00 0,49 0,02 >> 100,00 >> >> >> FIO directly on osd through librbd >> bw=11658KB/s, iops=2914 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await >> w_await svctm %util >> sdb 0,00 355,00 0,00 5225,00 0,00 29678,00 11,36 57,63 11,03 0,00 11,03 0,19 >> 99,70 >> >> >> (I don't understand what exactly is %util, 100% in the 2 cases, because 10x >> slower with ceph) > It would be interesting if you could catch the size of writes on SSD > during the bench through librbd (I know nmon can do that) Replying to myself ... I ask a bit quickly in the way we already have this information (29678 / 5225 = 5,68Ko), but this is irrelevant. Cheers >> It could be a dsync problem, result seem pretty poor >> >> # dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdb bs=4k count=65536 oflag=direct >> 65536+0 enregistrements lus >> 65536+0 enregistrements écrits >> 268435456 octets (268 MB) copiés, 2,77433 s, 96,8 MB/s >> >> >> # dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdb bs=4k count=65536 oflag=dsync,direct >> ^C17228+0 enregistrements lus >> 17228+0 enregistrements écrits >> 70565888 octets (71 MB) copiés, 70,4098 s, 1,0 MB/s >> >> >> >> I'll do tests with intel s3500 tomorrow to compare >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> >> De: "Sebastien Han" <sebastien....@enovance.com> >> À: "Warren Wang" <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com> >> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> Envoyé: Lundi 8 Septembre 2014 22:58:25 >> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K >> IOPS >> >> They definitely are Warren! >> >> Thanks for bringing this here :). >> >> On 05 Sep 2014, at 23:02, Wang, Warren <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to what Cedric said. >>> >>> Anything more than a few minutes of heavy sustained writes tended to get >>> our solid state devices into a state where garbage collection could not >>> keep up. Originally we used small SSDs and did not overprovision the >>> journals by much. Manufacturers publish their SSD stats, and then in very >>> small font, state that the attained IOPS are with empty drives, and the >>> tests are only run for very short amounts of time. Even if the drives are >>> new, it's a good idea to perform an hdparm secure erase on them (so that >>> the SSD knows that the blocks are truly unused), and then overprovision >>> them. You'll know if you have a problem by watching for utilization and >>> wait data on the journals. >>> >>> One of the other interesting performance issues is that the Intel 10Gbe >>> NICs + default kernel that we typically use max out around 1million >>> packets/sec. It's worth tracking this metric to if you are close. >>> >>> I know these aren't necessarily relevant to the test parameters you gave >>> below, but they're worth keeping in mind. >>> >>> -- >>> Warren Wang >>> Comcast Cloud (OpenStack) >>> >>> >>> From: Cedric Lemarchand <ced...@yipikai.org> >>> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM >>> To: "ceph-users@lists.ceph.com" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, >>> 2K IOPS >>> >>> >>> Le 03/09/2014 22:11, Sebastien Han a écrit : >>>> Hi Warren, >>>> >>>> What do mean exactly by secure erase? At the firmware level with >>>> constructor softwares? >>>> SSDs were pretty new so I don’t we hit that sort of things. I believe that >>>> only aged SSDs have this behaviour but I might be wrong. >>>> >>> Sorry I forgot to reply to the real question ;-) >>> So yes it only plays after some times, for your case, if the SSD still >>> delivers write IOPS specified by the manufacturer, it will doesn't help in >>> any ways. >>> >>> But it seems this practice is nowadays increasingly used. >>> >>> Cheers >>>> On 02 Sep 2014, at 18:23, Wang, Warren <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Sebastien, >>>>> >>>>> Something I didn't see in the thread so far, did you secure erase the >>>>> SSDs before they got used? I assume these were probably repurposed for >>>>> this test. We have seen some pretty significant garbage collection issue >>>>> on various SSD and other forms of solid state storage to the point where >>>>> we are overprovisioning pretty much every solid state device now. By as >>>>> much as 50% to handle sustained write operations. Especially important >>>>> for the journals, as we've found. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe not an issue on the short fio run below, but certainly evident on >>>>> longer runs or lots of historical data on the drives. The max transaction >>>>> time looks pretty good for your test. Something to consider though. >>>>> >>>>> Warren >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ceph-users [ >>>>> mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com >>>>> ] On Behalf Of Sebastien Han >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:12 PM >>>>> To: ceph-users >>>>> Cc: Mark Nelson >>>>> Subject: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K >>>>> IOPS >>>>> >>>>> Hey all, >>>>> >>>>> It has been a while since the last thread performance related on the ML >>>>> :p I've been running some experiment to see how much I can get from an >>>>> SSD on a Ceph cluster. >>>>> To achieve that I did something pretty simple: >>>>> >>>>> * Debian wheezy 7.6 >>>>> * kernel from debian 3.14-0.bpo.2-amd64 >>>>> * 1 cluster, 3 mons (i'd like to keep this realistic since in a real >>>>> deployment i'll use 3) >>>>> * 1 OSD backed by an SSD (journal and osd data on the same device) >>>>> * 1 replica count of 1 >>>>> * partitions are perfectly aligned >>>>> * io scheduler is set to noon but deadline was showing the same results >>>>> * no updatedb running >>>>> >>>>> About the box: >>>>> >>>>> * 32GB of RAM >>>>> * 12 cores with HT @ 2,4 GHz >>>>> * WB cache is enabled on the controller >>>>> * 10Gbps network (doesn't help here) >>>>> >>>>> The SSD is a 200G Intel DC S3700 and is capable of delivering around 29K >>>>> iops with random 4k writes (my fio results) As a benchmark tool I used >>>>> fio with the rbd engine (thanks deutsche telekom guys!). >>>>> >>>>> O_DIECT and D_SYNC don't seem to be a problem for the SSD: >>>>> >>>>> # dd if=/dev/urandom of=rand.file bs=4k count=65536 >>>>> 65536+0 records in >>>>> 65536+0 records out >>>>> 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 29.5477 s, 9.1 MB/s >>>>> >>>>> # du -sh rand.file >>>>> 256M rand.file >>>>> >>>>> # dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdo bs=4k count=65536 oflag=dsync,direct >>>>> 65536+0 records in >>>>> 65536+0 records out >>>>> 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.73628 s, 98.1 MB/s >>>>> >>>>> See my ceph.conf: >>>>> >>>>> [global] >>>>> auth cluster required = cephx >>>>> auth service required = cephx >>>>> auth client required = cephx >>>>> fsid = 857b8609-8c9b-499e-9161-2ea67ba51c97 >>>>> osd pool default pg num = 4096 >>>>> osd pool default pgp num = 4096 >>>>> osd pool default size = 2 >>>>> osd crush chooseleaf type = 0 >>>>> >>>>> debug lockdep = 0/0 >>>>> debug context = 0/0 >>>>> debug crush = 0/0 >>>>> debug buffer = 0/0 >>>>> debug timer = 0/0 >>>>> debug journaler = 0/0 >>>>> debug osd = 0/0 >>>>> debug optracker = 0/0 >>>>> debug objclass = 0/0 >>>>> debug filestore = 0/0 >>>>> debug journal = 0/0 >>>>> debug ms = 0/0 >>>>> debug monc = 0/0 >>>>> debug tp = 0/0 >>>>> debug auth = 0/0 >>>>> debug finisher = 0/0 >>>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0 >>>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0 >>>>> debug asok = 0/0 >>>>> debug throttle = 0/0 >>>>> >>>>> [mon] >>>>> mon osd down out interval = 600 >>>>> mon osd min down reporters = 13 >>>>> [mon.ceph-01] >>>>> host = ceph-01 >>>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.171 >>>>> [mon.ceph-02] >>>>> host = ceph-02 >>>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.172 >>>>> [mon.ceph-03] >>>>> host = ceph-03 >>>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.173 >>>>> >>>>> debug lockdep = 0/0 >>>>> debug context = 0/0 >>>>> debug crush = 0/0 >>>>> debug buffer = 0/0 >>>>> debug timer = 0/0 >>>>> debug journaler = 0/0 >>>>> debug osd = 0/0 >>>>> debug optracker = 0/0 >>>>> debug objclass = 0/0 >>>>> debug filestore = 0/0 >>>>> debug journal = 0/0 >>>>> debug ms = 0/0 >>>>> debug monc = 0/0 >>>>> debug tp = 0/0 >>>>> debug auth = 0/0 >>>>> debug finisher = 0/0 >>>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0 >>>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0 >>>>> debug asok = 0/0 >>>>> debug throttle = 0/0 >>>>> >>>>> [osd] >>>>> osd mkfs type = xfs >>>>> osd mkfs options xfs = -f -i size=2048 >>>>> osd mount options xfs = rw,noatime,logbsize=256k,delaylog >>>>> osd journal size = 20480 >>>>> cluster_network = 172.20.20.0/24 >>>>> public_network = 172.20.20.0/24 >>>>> osd mon heartbeat interval = 30 >>>>> # Performance tuning >>>>> filestore merge threshold = 40 >>>>> filestore split multiple = 8 >>>>> osd op threads = 8 >>>>> # Recovery tuning >>>>> osd recovery max active = 1 >>>>> osd max backfills = 1 >>>>> osd recovery op priority = 1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> debug lockdep = 0/0 >>>>> debug context = 0/0 >>>>> debug crush = 0/0 >>>>> debug buffer = 0/0 >>>>> debug timer = 0/0 >>>>> debug journaler = 0/0 >>>>> debug osd = 0/0 >>>>> debug optracker = 0/0 >>>>> debug objclass = 0/0 >>>>> debug filestore = 0/0 >>>>> debug journal = 0/0 >>>>> debug ms = 0/0 >>>>> debug monc = 0/0 >>>>> debug tp = 0/0 >>>>> debug auth = 0/0 >>>>> debug finisher = 0/0 >>>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0 >>>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0 >>>>> debug asok = 0/0 >>>>> debug throttle = 0/0 >>>>> >>>>> Disabling all debugging made me win 200/300 more IOPS. >>>>> >>>>> See my fio template: >>>>> >>>>> [global] >>>>> #logging >>>>> #write_iops_log=write_iops_log >>>>> #write_bw_log=write_bw_log >>>>> #write_lat_log=write_lat_lo >>>>> >>>>> time_based >>>>> runtime=60 >>>>> >>>>> ioengine=rbd >>>>> clientname=admin >>>>> pool=test >>>>> rbdname=fio >>>>> invalidate=0 # mandatory >>>>> #rw=randwrite >>>>> rw=write >>>>> bs=4k >>>>> #bs=32m >>>>> size=5G >>>>> group_reporting >>>>> >>>>> [rbd_iodepth32] >>>>> iodepth=32 >>>>> direct=1 >>>>> >>>>> See my rio output: >>>>> >>>>> rbd_iodepth32: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, >>>>> iodepth=32 fio-2.1.11-14-gb74e Starting 1 process rbd engine: RBD >>>>> version: 0.1.8 >>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W(1)] [100.0% done] [0KB/12876KB/0KB /s] [0/3219/0 iops] >>>>> [eta 00m:00s] >>>>> rbd_iodepth32: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=32116: Thu Aug 28 >>>>> 00:28:26 2014 >>>>> write: io=771448KB, bw=12855KB/s, iops=3213, runt= 60010msec >>>>> slat (usec): min=42, max=1578, avg=66.50, stdev=16.96 >>>>> clat (msec): min=1, max=28, avg= 9.85, stdev= 1.48 >>>>> lat (msec): min=1, max=28, avg= 9.92, stdev= 1.47 >>>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>>> | 1.00th=[ 6368], 5.00th=[ 8256], 10.00th=[ 8640], 20.00th=[ 9152], >>>>> | 30.00th=[ 9408], 40.00th=[ 9664], 50.00th=[ 9792], 60.00th=[10048], >>>>> | 70.00th=[10176], 80.00th=[10560], 90.00th=[10944], 95.00th=[11456], >>>>> | 99.00th=[13120], 99.50th=[16768], 99.90th=[25984], 99.95th=[27008], >>>>> | 99.99th=[28032] >>>>> bw (KB /s): min=11864, max=13808, per=100.00%, avg=12864.36, stdev=407.35 >>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.54%, 10=59.79%, 20=39.24%, 50=0.41% >>>>> cpu : usr=19.15%, sys=4.69%, ctx=326309, majf=0, minf=426088 >>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=33.9%, 32=66.1%, >=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=99.6%, 8=0.4%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=192862/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>>> >>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>>> WRITE: io=771448KB, aggrb=12855KB/s, minb=12855KB/s, maxb=12855KB/s, >>>>> mint=60010msec, maxt=60010msec >>>>> >>>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>>> dm-1: ios=0/49, merge=0/0, ticks=0/12, in_queue=12, util=0.01%, >>>>> aggrios=0/22, aggrmerge=0/27, aggrticks=0/12, aggrin_queue=12, >>>>> aggrutil=0.01% >>>>> sda: ios=0/22, merge=0/27, ticks=0/12, in_queue=12, util=0.01% >>>>> >>>>> I tried to tweak several parameters like: >>>>> >>>>> filestore_wbthrottle_xfs_ios_start_flusher = 10000 >>>>> filestore_wbthrottle_xfs_ios_hard_limit = 10000 >>>>> filestore_wbthrottle_btrfs_ios_start_flusher = 10000 >>>>> filestore_wbthrottle_btrfs_ios_hard_limit = 10000 filestore queue max ops >>>>> = 2000 >>>>> >>>>> But didn't any improvement. >>>>> >>>>> Then I tried other things: >>>>> >>>>> * Increasing the io_depth up to 256 or 512 gave me between 50 to 100 more >>>>> IOPS but it's not a realistic workload anymore and not that significant. >>>>> * adding another SSD for the journal, still getting 3,2K IOPS >>>>> * I tried with rbd bench and I also got 3K IOPS >>>>> * I ran the test on a client machine and then locally on the server, >>>>> still getting 3,2K IOPS >>>>> * put the journal in memory, still getting 3,2K IOPS >>>>> * with 2 clients running the test in parallel I got a total of 3,6K IOPS >>>>> but I don't seem to be able to go over >>>>> * I tried is to add another OSD to that SSD, so I had 2 OSD and 2 >>>>> journals on 1 SSD, got 4,5K IOPS YAY! >>>>> >>>>> Given the results of the last time it seems that something is limiting >>>>> the number of IOPS per OSD process. >>>>> >>>>> Running the test on a client or locally didn't show any difference. >>>>> So it looks to me that there is some contention within Ceph that might >>>>> cause this. >>>>> >>>>> I also ran perf and looked at the output, everything looks decent, but >>>>> someone might want to have a look at it :). >>>>> >>>>> We have been able to reproduce this on 3 distinct platforms with some >>>>> deviations (because of the hardware) but the behaviour is the same. >>>>> Any thoughts will be highly appreciated, only getting 3,2k out of an 29K >>>>> IOPS SSD is a bit frustrating :). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers. >>>>> ---- >>>>> Sébastien Han >>>>> Cloud Architect >>>>> >>>>> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood." >>>>> >>>>> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 >>>>> Mail: >>>>> sebastien....@enovance.com >>>>> >>>>> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris Web : >>>>> www.enovance.com >>>>> - Twitter : @enovance >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> –––– >>>> Sébastien Han >>>> Cloud Architect >>>> >>>> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood." >>>> >>>> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 >>>> Mail: >>>> sebastien....@enovance.com >>>> >>>> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris >>>> Web : >>>> www.enovance.com >>>> - Twitter : @enovance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> >>>> ceph-us...@lists.ceph.comhttp://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>> -- >>> Cédric >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> Cheers. >> –––– >> Sébastien Han >> Cloud Architect >> >> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood." >> >> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 >> Mail: sebastien....@enovance.com >> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris >> Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Cédric _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
