7 total servers, 20 GIG pipe between servers, both reads and writes. The network itself has plenty of pipe left, it is averaging 40Mbits/s
Rados Bench SAS 30 writes Total time run: 30.591927 Total writes made: 386 Write size: 4194304 Bandwidth (MB/sec): 50.471 Stddev Bandwidth: 48.1052 Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 160 Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0 Average Latency: 1.25908 Stddev Latency: 2.62018 Max latency: 21.2809 Min latency: 0.029227 Rados Bench SSD writes Total time run: 20.425192 Total writes made: 1405 Write size: 4194304 Bandwidth (MB/sec): 275.150 Stddev Bandwidth: 122.565 Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 576 Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0 Average Latency: 0.231803 Stddev Latency: 0.190978 Max latency: 0.981022 Min latency: 0.0265421 As you can see SSD is better but not as much as I would expect SSD to be. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Alan Johnson <al...@supermicro.com> wrote: > Hard to know without more config details such as no of servers, network – > GigE or !0 GigE, also not sure how you are measuring, (reads or writes) you > could try RADOS bench as a baseline, I would expect more performance with 7 > X 10K spinners journaled to SSDs. The fact that SSDs did not perform much > better may mean to a bottleneck elsewhere – network perhaps? > > *From:* Marek Dohojda [mailto:mdoho...@altitudedigital.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:37 AM > *To:* Alan Johnson > *Cc:* Haomai Wang; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] Performance question > > > > Yeah they are, that is one thing I was planning on changing, What I am > really interested at the moment, is vague expected performance. I mean is > 100MB around normal, very low, or "could be better"? > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Alan Johnson <al...@supermicro.com> > wrote: > > Are the journals on the same device – it might be better to use the SSDs > for journaling since you are not getting better performance with SSDs? > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] *On Behalf > Of *Marek Dohojda > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2015 10:24 PM > *To:* Haomai Wang > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] Performance question > > > > Sorry I should have specified SAS is the 100 MB :) , but to be honest SSD > isn't much faster. > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Haomai Wang <haomaiw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Marek Dohojda > <mdoho...@altitudedigital.com> wrote: > > No SSD and SAS are in two separate pools. > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Haomai Wang <haomaiw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Marek Dohojda > >> <mdoho...@altitudedigital.com> wrote: > >> > I have a Hammer Ceph cluster on 7 nodes with total 14 OSDs. 7 of > which > >> > are > >> > SSD and 7 of which are SAS 10K drives. I get typically about 100MB IO > >> > rates > >> > on this cluster. > > So which pool you get with 100 MB? > > > >> > >> You mixed up sas and ssd in one pool? > >> > >> > > >> > I have a simple question. Is 100MB within my configuration what I > >> > should > >> > expect, or should it be higher? I am not sure if I should be looking > for > >> > issues, or just accept what I have. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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
