Felix,
According to my tests there is difference in performance between usual named
buckets (test, test01, test02), uuid-named buckets (like
'7c9e4a81-df86-4c9d-a681-3a570de109db') or just date ('2016-09-20-16h').
Getting ~3x more upload performance (220 uploads\s vs 650 uploads\s) with
SSD-backed indexes or 'blind buckets' feature enabled.
Stas
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Félix Barbeira <fbarbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Regarding to Amazon S3 documentation, it is advised to insert a bit of random
> chars in the bucket name in order to gain performance. This is related to how
> Amazon store key names. It looks like they store an index of object key names
> in each region.
>
> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/request-rate-perf-considerations.html#workloads-with-mix-request-types
>
> <http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/request-rate-perf-considerations.html#workloads-with-mix-request-types>
>
> My question is: is this also a good practice in a ceph cluster where all the
> nodes are in the same datacenter? It is relevant in ceph the name of the
> bucket to gain more performance? I think it's not, because all the data is
> spread in the placement groups all over the osd nodes, no matter what bucket
> name he got. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Félix Barbeira.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
