On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Don Waterloo <don.water...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 December 2015 at 22:47, Yan, Zheng <uker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> fio tests AIO performance in this case. cephfs does not handle AIO >> properly, AIO is actually SYNC IO. that's why cephfs is so slow in >> this case. >> >> Regards >> Yan, Zheng >> > > OK, so i changed fio engine to 'sync' for the comparison of a single > underlying osd vs the cephfs. > > the cephfs w/ sync is ~ 115iops / ~500KB/s.
This is normal because you were doing single thread sync IO. If round-trip time for each OSD request is about 10ms (network latency), you can only have about 100 IOPS. > the underlying osd storage w/ sync is 6500 iops/270MB/s. > > I also don't think this explains why cephfs-fuse faster (~5x faster, but > still ~100x slower than it should be). > Direct IO is used in your test case. ceph-fuse does not handle direct-IO correctly, user space cache is used in direct-IO case. Regards Yan, Zheng > If i get rid of fio and use tried-and-true dd: > time dd if=/dev/zero of=rw.data bs=256k count=10000 > on the underlying osd storage shows 426MB/s. > on the cephfs, it gets 694MB/s. > > hmm. > > so i guess my 'lag' issue of slow requests is unrelated and is my real > problem. > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
