[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-20 Thread Maged Mokhtar
uxia...@horebdata.cn *From:* Maged Mokhtar <mailto:mmokh...@petasan.org> *Date:* 2020-09-18 18:20 *To:* vitalif <mailto:vita...@yourcmc.ru>; huxiaoyu <mailto:huxia...@horebdata.cn>; ceph-users <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] Re: Ben

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-19 Thread huxia...@horebdata.cn
, Samuel huxia...@horebdata.cn From: Maged Mokhtar Date: 2020-09-18 18:20 To: vitalif; huxiaoyu; ceph-users Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS dm-writecache works using a high and low watermarks, set at 45 and 50%. All writes land in cache, once

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-18 Thread Daniel Poelzleithner
On 2020-09-17 19:21, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: > It does, RGW really needs SSDs for bucket indexes. CephFS also needs SSDs for > metadata in any setup that's used by more than 1 user :). Nah. I crashed my first cephfs with my music library, a 2 TB git annex repo, just me alone (slow ops on mds).

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-18 Thread Maged Mokhtar
dm-writecache works using a high and low watermarks, set at 45 and 50%. All writes land in cache, once cache fills to the high watermark backfilling to the slow device starts and stops when reaching the low watermark. Backfilling uses b-tree with LRU blocks and tries merge blocks to reduce h

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-18 Thread George Shuklin
On 17/09/2020 17:37, Mark Nelson wrote: Does fio handle S3 objects spread across many buckets well? I think bucket listing performance was maybe missing too, but It's been a while since I looked at fio's S3 support.  Maybe they have those use cases covered now.  I wrote a go based benchmark cal

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-18 Thread vitalif
> we did test dm-cache, bcache and dm-writecache, we found the later to be > much better. Did you set bcache block size to 4096 during your tests? Without this setting it's slow because 99.9% SSDs don't handle 512 byte overwrites well. Otherwise I don't think bcache should be worse than dm-write

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-18 Thread huxia...@horebdata.cn
: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS On 17/09/2020 19:21, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: > RBD in fact doesn't benefit much from the WAL/DB partition alone because > Bluestore never does more writes per second than HDD can do on average (it > flushes every 32 writes to

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-17 Thread Maged Mokhtar
On 17/09/2020 19:21, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: RBD in fact doesn't benefit much from the WAL/DB partition alone because Bluestore never does more writes per second than HDD can do on average (it flushes every 32 writes to the HDD). For RBD, the best thing is bcache. rbd will benefit: for

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-17 Thread Mark Nelson
On 9/17/20 12:21 PM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: It does, RGW really needs SSDs for bucket indexes. CephFS also needs SSDs for metadata in any setup that's used by more than 1 user :). RBD in fact doesn't benefit much from the WAL/DB partition alone because Bluestore never does more writes per

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-17 Thread vitalif
It does, RGW really needs SSDs for bucket indexes. CephFS also needs SSDs for metadata in any setup that's used by more than 1 user :). RBD in fact doesn't benefit much from the WAL/DB partition alone because Bluestore never does more writes per second than HDD can do on average (it flushes ever

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-17 Thread Mark Nelson
Does fio handle S3 objects spread across many buckets well? I think  bucket listing performance was maybe missing too, but It's been a while since I looked at fio's S3 support.  Maybe they have those use cases covered now.  I wrote a go based benchmark called hsbench based on the wasabi-tech be

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-17 Thread George Shuklin
On 16/09/2020 07:26, Danni Setiawan wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to find performance penalty with OSD HDD when using WAL/DB in faster device (SSD/NVMe) vs WAL/DB in same device (HDD) for different workload (RBD, RGW with index bucket in SSD pool, and CephFS with metadata in SSD pool). I want to

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-16 Thread Danni Setiawan
Yes, I agree that there are many knob for fine tuning Ceph performance. The problem is we don't have data which workload that benefit most from WAL/DB in SSD vs in same spinning drive and by how much. Does it really help in a cluster that mostly for object storage/RGW? Or may be just block stor

[ceph-users] Re: Benchmark WAL/DB on SSD and HDD for RGW RBD CephFS

2020-09-16 Thread Janne Johansson
Den ons 16 sep. 2020 kl 06:27 skrev Danni Setiawan < danni.n.setia...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to find performance penalty with OSD HDD when using WAL/DB in > faster device (SSD/NVMe) vs WAL/DB in same device (HDD) for different > workload (RBD, RGW with index bucket in SSD pool, and C