Please never use the Datasheet values to select your SSD. We never had a single one that that delivers the shown perfomance in a Ceph Journal use case.
However, do not use Filestore anymore. Especialy with newer kernel versions. Use Bluestore instead. -- Martin Verges Managing director Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.ver...@croit.io Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263 Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx Am Mi., 14. Nov. 2018, 05:46 hat <dave.c...@dell.com> geschrieben: > Thanks Merrick! > > > > I checked with Intel spec [1], the performance Intel said is, > > > > · Sequential Read (up to) 500 MB/s > > · Sequential Write (up to) 330 MB/s > > · Random Read (100% Span) 72000 IOPS > > · Random Write (100% Span) 20000 IOPS > > > > I think these indicator should be must better than general HDD, and I have > run read/write commands with “rados bench” respectively, there should be > some difference. > > > > And is there any kinds of configuration that could give us any performance > gain with this SSD (Intel S4500)? > > > > [1] > https://ark.intel.com/products/120521/Intel-SSD-DC-S4500-Series-480GB-2-5in-SATA-6Gb-s-3D1-TLC- > > > > Best Regards, > > Dave Chen > > > > *From:* Ashley Merrick <singap...@amerrick.co.uk> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:30 PM > *To:* Chen2, Dave > *Cc:* ceph-users > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the > journal > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive > information. > > Only certain SSD's are good for CEPH Journals as can be seen @ > https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/ > > > > The SSD your using isn't listed but doing a quick search online it appears > to be a SSD designed for read workloads as a "upgrade" from a HD so > probably is not designed for the high write requirements a journal demands. > > Therefore when it's been hit by 3 OSD's of workloads your not going to get > much more performance out of it than you would just using the disk as your > seeing. > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM <dave.c...@dell.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > We want to compare the performance between HDD partition as the journal > (inline from OSD disk) and SSD partition as the journal, here is what we > have done, we have 3 nodes used as Ceph OSD, each has 3 OSD on it. > Firstly, we created the OSD with journal from OSD partition, and run “rados > bench” utility to test the performance, and then migrate the journal from > HDD to SSD (Intel S4500) and run “rados bench” again, the expected result > is SSD partition should be much better than HDD, but the result shows us > there is nearly no change, > > > > The configuration of Ceph is as below, > > pool size: 3 > > osd size: 3*3 > > pg (pgp) num: 300 > > osd nodes are separated across three different nodes > > rbd image size: 10G (10240M) > > > > The utility I used is, > > rados bench -p rbd $duration write > > rados bench -p rbd $duration seq > > rados bench -p rbd $duration rand > > > > Is there anything wrong from what I did? Could anyone give me some > suggestion? > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Dave Chen > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
