> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph random read IOPS
> >
> > On 26-6-2017 09:01, Christian Wuerdig wrote:
> > > Well, preferring faster clock CPUs for SSD scenarios has been floated
> > > several times over the last few months on this list. And realistic or
>
On 2017-06-26 15:34, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 26-6-2017 09:01, Christian Wuerdig wrote:
>
>> Well, preferring faster clock CPUs for SSD scenarios has been floated
>> several times over the last few months on this list. And realistic or
>> not, Nick's and Kostas' setup are similar enough (
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Willem Jan Withagen
> Sent: 26 June 2017 14:35
> To: Christian Wuerdig
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph random read IOPS
>
> On 26-6-2017 09:
On 26-6-2017 09:01, Christian Wuerdig wrote:
> Well, preferring faster clock CPUs for SSD scenarios has been floated
> several times over the last few months on this list. And realistic or
> not, Nick's and Kostas' setup are similar enough (testing single disk)
> that it's a distinct possibility.
>
Well, preferring faster clock CPUs for SSD scenarios has been floated
several times over the last few months on this list. And realistic or not,
Nick's and Kostas' setup are similar enough (testing single disk) that it's
a distinct possibility.
Anyway, as mentioned measuring the performance counter
> Op 24 jun. 2017 om 14:17 heeft Maged Mokhtar het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> My understanding was this test is targeting latency more than IOPS. This is
> probably why its was run using QD=1. It also makes sense that cpu freq will
> be more important than cores.
>
But then it is not gene
t: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph random read IOPS
> My understanding was this test is targeting latency more than IOPS. This is
> probably why its was run using QD=1. It also makes sense that cpu freq will
> be more important than cores.
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-06-24 12:52, Willem Ja
My understanding was this test is targeting latency more than IOPS. This
is probably why its was run using QD=1. It also makes sense that cpu
freq will be more important than cores.
On 2017-06-24 12:52, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 24-6-2017 05:30, Christian Wuerdig wrote:
>
>> The general
On 24-6-2017 05:30, Christian Wuerdig wrote:
> The general advice floating around is that your want CPUs with high
> clock speeds rather than more cores to reduce latency and increase IOPS
> for SSD setups (see also
> http://www.sys-pro.co.uk/ceph-storage-fast-cpus-ssd-performance/) So
> something
The general advice floating around is that your want CPUs with high clock
speeds rather than more cores to reduce latency and increase IOPS for SSD
setups (see also
http://www.sys-pro.co.uk/ceph-storage-fast-cpus-ssd-performance/) So
something like a E5-2667V4 might bring better results in that sit
Hello,
We are in the process of evaluating the performance of a testing
cluster (3 nodes) with ceph jewel. Our setup consists of:
3 monitors (VMs)
2 physical servers each connected with 1 JBOD running Ubuntu Server 16.04
Each server has 32 threads @2.1GHz and 128GB RAM.
The disk distribution per
11 matches
Mail list logo
