Thanks Jan, that is an excellent explanation.
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: 26 February 2016 10:07
To: Huan Zhang
Cc: josh durgin ; Nick Fisk ;
ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
O_DIRECT is
ph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>> Huan Zhang
>> Sent: 26 February 2016 09:30
>> To: Nick Fisk
>> Cc: josh durgin ; ceph-users > us...@ceph.com>
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
>>
>> Hi N
6:59 GMT+08:00 Nick Fisk <mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk>>:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com
> > <mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com>] On Behalf Of
> > Huan Zhang
> > Sent: 26 February 2016 06:50
&g
s-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 26 February 2016 09:30
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: josh durgin ; ceph-users us...@ceph.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
>
> Hi Nick,
> DB's IO pattern depends on config, mysql for example.
>
te iops with fio.
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-26 16:59 GMT+08:00 Nick Fisk :
>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > Huan Zhang
>> > Sent: 26 February 2016 06:50
>>
--
> > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> > Huan Zhang
> > Sent: 26 February 2016 06:50
> > To: Jason Dillaman
> > Cc: josh durgin ; Nick Fisk ;
> > ceph-users
> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 26 February 2016 06:50
> To: Jason Dillaman
> Cc: josh durgin ; Nick Fisk ;
> ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so po
Since fio /dev/rbd0 sync=1 works well, it doesn't matter with ceph server,
just related to librbd (rbd_aio_flush) implement?
2016-02-26 14:50 GMT+08:00 Huan Zhang :
> rbd engine with fsync=1 seems stuck.
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w(1)] [0.0% done] [0KB/0KB/0KB /s] [0/0/0 iops] [eta
> 1244d:10h:39m:18s]
>
rbd engine with fsync=1 seems stuck.
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w(1)] [0.0% done] [0KB/0KB/0KB /s] [0/0/0 iops] [eta
1244d:10h:39m:18s]
But fio using /dev/rbd0 sync=1 direct=1 ioengine=libaio iodepth=64, get
very high iops ~35K, similar to direct wirte.
I'm confused with that result, IMHO, ceph could just i
> 35K IOPS with ioengine=rbd sounds like the "sync=1" option doesn't actually
> work. Or it's not touching the same object (but I wonder whether write
> ordering is preserved at that rate?).
The fio rbd engine does not support "sync=1"; however, it should support
"fsync=1" to accomplish roughly t
11:11 >> To: josh.dur...@inktank.com
>> Cc: ceph-users >> Subject: [ceph-users]
Guest sync write iops so poor. >> >> Hi, >> We test sync iops with
fio sync=1 for database workloads in VM, >> the backend is librbd
and ceph (all SSD setup). >> The
> On 25 Feb 2016, at 14:39, Nick Fisk wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>> Huan Zhang
>> Sent: 25 February 2016 11:11
>> To: josh.dur...@inktank.com
>> Cc:
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 25 February 2016 11:11
> To: josh.dur...@inktank.com
> Cc: ceph-users
> Subject: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
>
> Hi,
>W
Hi,
We test sync iops with fio sync=1 for database workloads in VM,
the backend is librbd and ceph (all SSD setup).
The result is sad to me. we only get ~400 IOPS sync randwrite with
iodepth=1
to iodepth=32.
But test in physical machine with fio ioengine=rbd sync=1, we can reache
~35K IO
14 matches
Mail list logo
