On 04/14/2015 08:01 PM, shiva rkreddy wrote:
The clusters are in test environment, so its a new deployment of 0.80.9.
OS on the cluster nodes is reinstalled as well, so there shouldn't be
any fs aging unless the disks are slowing down.
The perf measurement is done initiating multiple cinder crea
Retried the test with by setting: rbd_concurrent_management_ops and
rbd-concurrent-management-ops to 20 (default 10?) and didn't see any
difference in the delete time.
Steps:
1. Create 20, 500GB volumes
2. run : rbd -n clientkey -p cindervols rbd rm $volumeId &
3. run rbd ls command in with 1 seco
The clusters are in test environment, so its a new deployment of 0.80.9. OS
on the cluster nodes is reinstalled as well, so there shouldn't be any fs
aging unless the disks are slowing down.
The perf measurement is done initiating multiple cinder create/delete
commands and tracking the volume to b
I don't see any commits that would be likely to affect that between 0.80.7 and
0.80.9.
Is this after upgrading an existing cluster?
Could this be due to fs aging beneath your osds?
How are you measuring create/delete performance?
You can try increasing rbd concurrent management ops in ceph.conf
Hi Josh,
We are using firefly 0.80.9 and see both cinder create/delete numbers slow
down compared 0.80.7.
I don't see any specific tuning requirements and our cluster is run pretty
much on default configuration.
Do you recommend any tuning or can you please suggest some log signatures
we need to b
On 03/03/2015 03:28 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi,
This is just a heads up that we've identified a performance regression in
v0.80.8 from previous firefly releases. A v0.80.9 is working it's way
through QA and should be out in a few days. If you haven't upg
Le mardi 03 mars 2015 à 16:32 -0800, Sage Weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> > Does kernel client affected by the problem ?
>
> Nope. The kernel client is unaffected.. the issue is in librbd.
>
> sage
>
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
So I have to dig !
___
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> Does kernel client affected by the problem ?
Nope. The kernel client is unaffected.. the issue is in librbd.
sage
>
> Le mardi 03 mars 2015 à 15:19 -0800, Sage Weil a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is just a heads up that we've identified a perform
Does kernel client affected by the problem ?
Le mardi 03 mars 2015 à 15:19 -0800, Sage Weil a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> This is just a heads up that we've identified a performance regression in
> v0.80.8 from previous firefly releases. A v0.80.9 is working it's way
> through QA and should be out in a
On 03/03/2015 04:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is just a heads up that we've identified a performance regression in
> v0.80.8 from previous firefly releases. A v0.80.9 is working it's way
> through QA and should be out in a few days. If you haven't upgraded yet
> you may want to wait
Hi,
This is just a heads up that we've identified a performance regression in
v0.80.8 from previous firefly releases. A v0.80.9 is working it's way
through QA and should be out in a few days. If you haven't upgraded yet
you may want to wait.
Thanks!
sage
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
