Exactly, I'm just looking forward a better DB backend suitable for KeyValueStore. It maybe traditional B-tree design.
Kinetic original I think it was a good backend, but it doesn't support range query :-( On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Chen, Xiaoxi <xiaoxi.c...@intel.com> wrote: > We have tested it for a while, basically it seems kind of stable but > show terrible bad performance. > > > > This is not the fault of Ceph , but levelDB, or more generally, all K-V > storage with LSM design(RocksDB,etc), the LSM tree structure naturally > introduce very large write amplification---- 10X to 20X when you have tens > GB of data per OSD. So you can always see very bad sequential write > performance (~200MB/s for a 12SSD setup), we can share more details on the > performance meeting. > > > > To this end, key-value backend with LevelDB is not useable for RBD usage, > but maybe workable(not tested) in the LOSF cases ( tons of small objects > stored via rados , k-v backend can prevent the FS metadata become the > bottleneck) > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] *On Behalf > Of *Haomai Wang > *Sent:* Monday, December 1, 2014 9:48 PM > *To:* Satoru Funai > *Cc:* ceph-us...@ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] LevelDB support status is still experimental > on Giant? > > > > Yeah, mainly used by test env. > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Satoru Funai <satoru.fu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi guys, > I'm interested in to use key/value store as a backend of Ceph OSD. > When firefly release, LevelDB support is mentioned as experimental, > is it same status on Giant release? > Regards, > > Satoru Funai > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Wheat > -- Best Regards, Wheat
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
