Hi All,
What I saw after enabling RBD cache it is working as expected, means
sequential write has better MBps than random write. can somebody explain
this behaviour ? Is RBD cache setting must for ceph cluster to behave
normally ?
Thanks
sumit
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Sumit Gaur <sumitkg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Florent,
> Cache tiering , No .
>
> ** Our Architecture :
>
> vdbench/FIO inside VM <--> RBD without cache <-> Ceph Cluster (6 OSDs + 3
> Mons)
>
>
> Thanks
> sumit
>
> [root@ceph-mon01 ~]# ceph -s
> cluster 47b3b559-f93c-4259-a6fb-97b00d87c55a
> health HEALTH_WARN clock skew detected on mon.ceph-mon02,
> mon.ceph-mon03
> monmap e1: 3 mons at {ceph-mon01=
> 192.168.10.19:6789/0,ceph-mon02=192.168.10.20:6789/0,ceph-mon03=192.168.10.21:6789/0},
> election epoch 14, quorum 0,1,2 ceph-mon01,ceph-mon02,ceph-mon03
> osdmap e603: 36 osds: 36 up, 36 in
> pgmap v40812: 5120 pgs, 2 pools, 179 GB data, 569 kobjects
> 522 GB used, 9349 GB / 9872 GB avail
> 5120 active+clean
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Florent MONTHEL <fmont...@flox-arts.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sumit
>>
>> Do you have cache pool tiering activated ?
>> Some feed-back regarding your architecture ?
>> Thanks
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On 1 févr. 2015, at 15:50, Sumit Gaur <sumitkg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> > I have installed 6 node ceph cluster and to my surprise when I ran
>> rados bench I saw that random write has more performance number then
>> sequential write. This is opposite to normal disk write. Can some body let
>> me know if I am missing any ceph Architecture point here ?
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
