Seems like the `osd df tree` call is about 25% slower, plus minus.
Tested on our AMD test cluster that is currently set up with 3 nodes with 4 OSDs
each. 50k iterations.
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9217/s -- -27%
osd-tree 12658/s 37% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9141/s -- -25%
osd-tree 12136/s 33% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9940/s -- -23%
osd-tree 12987/s 31% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 8666/s -- -20%
osd-tree 10846/s 25% --
root@jura1:~#
On 2/14/23 14:19, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
On 14/02/2023 09:13, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
By switching from 'ceph osd tree' to the 'ceph osd df tree' mon API
equivalent , we get the same data structure with more information per
the change looks almost too neat for using a completely different command,
a bit fishy, but hey, if it works (roughly as fast) as the other one its
fine to me.
OSD. One of them is the number of PGs stored on that OSD.
did you benchmark the both to compare for any bigger runtime difference?
E.g., some loop with a few thousands rados mon_command calls in perl for each
using HiRes timer to measure total loop time and compare?
I'd not care for a few percent, but would be good to know if this is
order of magnitudes slower - which I'd not expect, but its to easy to
check to not do so IMO.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
