On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Mark Nelson <mark.nel...@inktank.com>wrote:

> Great Work! This is very exciting!  Did you happen to try RADOS bench at
> different object sizes and concurrency levels?
>
>
Maybe can try it later. :-)


> Mark
>
>
> On 11/24/2013 03:01 AM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For Emperor
>> blueprint(http://wiki.ceph.com/01Planning/02Blueprints/
>> Emperor/Add_LevelDB_support_to_ceph_cluster_backend_store),
>> I'm sorry to delay the progress. Now, I have done the most of the works
>> for the blueprint's goal. Because of sage's F
>> blueprint(http://wiki.ceph.com/index.php?title=01Planning/02Blueprints/
>> Firefly/osd:_new_key%2F%2Fvalue_backend),
>> I need to adjust some codes to match it. The branch is
>> here(https://github.com/yuyuyu101/ceph/tree/wip/6173).
>>
>> I have tested the LevelDB backend on three nodes(eight OSDs) and compare
>> it to FileStore(ext4). I just use intern benchmark tool "rados bench" to
>> get the comparison. The default ceph configurations is used and
>> replication size is 2. The filesystem is ext4 and no others changed. The
>> results is below:
>>
>> *Rados Bench*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Bandwidth(MB/sec)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Average Latency*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Max Latency*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Min Latency*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stddev Latency*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stddev Bandwidth(MB/sec)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Max Bandwidth(MB/sec)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Min Bandwidth(MB/sec)*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>> *Write 30*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 24.590
>>
>>
>>
>> 23.495
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.87257
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.07716
>>
>>
>>
>> 14.752
>>
>>
>>
>> 13.0885
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.580851
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.605118
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.97708
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.30538
>>
>>
>>
>> 9.91938
>>
>>
>>
>> 10.5986
>>
>>
>>
>> 44
>>
>>
>>
>> 76
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> *Write 20*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 23.515
>>
>>
>>
>> 23.064
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.39745
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.45711
>>
>>
>>
>> 11.6089
>>
>>
>>
>> 11.5996
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.169507
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.138595
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.58285
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.75962
>>
>>
>>
>> 9.14467
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.54156
>>
>>
>>
>> 44
>>
>>
>>
>> 40
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> *Write 10*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 22.927
>>
>>
>>
>> 21.980
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.73815
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.8198
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.53792
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.46675
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.171028
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.143392
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.05982
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.20303
>>
>>
>>
>> 9.18403
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.74401
>>
>>
>>
>> 44
>>
>>
>>
>> 40
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> *Write 5*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 19.680
>>
>>
>>
>> 20.017
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.01492
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.997019
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.10783
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.05008
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.143758
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.138161
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.561548
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.571459
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.92575
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.844
>>
>>
>>
>> 36
>>
>>
>>
>> 32
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>>
>>
>> 0
>>
>> *Read 30*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 65.852
>>
>>
>>
>> 60.688
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.80069
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.96009
>>
>>
>>
>> 9.30039
>>
>>
>>
>> 10.1146
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.115153
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.061657
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Read 20*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 59.372
>>
>>
>>
>> 60.738
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.30479
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.28383
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.28435
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.21304
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.016843
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.012073
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Read 10*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 65.502
>>
>>
>>
>> 55.814
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.608805
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.7087
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.3917
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.72626
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.016267
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.011998
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Read 5*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 64.176
>>
>>
>>
>> 54.928
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.307111
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.364077
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.76391
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.90182
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.017174
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.011999
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Charts can be view here(http://img42.com/ziwjP+) and
>> (http://img42.com/LKhoo+)
>>
>>
>>  From above, I'm feeling relieved that the LevelDB backend isn't
>> useless. Most of metrics are better and if increasing cache size for
>> LevelDB the results may be more attractive.
>> Even more, LevelDB backend is used by "KeyValueStore" and much of
>> optimizations can be done to improve performance such as increase
>> parallel threads or optimize io path.
>>
>> Next, I use "rbd bench-write" to test. The result is pity:
>>
>> *RBD Bench-Write*
>>
>>
>>
>> *OPS/sec*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Bytes/sec*
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *KVStore*
>>
>>
>>
>> *FileStore*
>>
>> *Seq 4096 5*
>>
>>
>>
>> 27.42
>>
>>
>>
>> 716.55
>>
>>
>>
>> 111861.51
>>
>>
>>
>> 2492149.21
>>
>> *Rand 4096 5*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 28.27
>>
>>
>>
>> 504
>>
>>
>>
>> 112331.42
>>
>>
>>
>> 1683151.29
>>
>>
>> Just because kv backend doesn't support read/write operation with
>> offset/length argument, each read/write operation will call a additional
>> read LevelDB api to do. Much of time is consumed by reading entire large
>> object in rbd situation. There exists some ways to change such as split
>> large object to multi small objects or save metadata to avoid read
>> arduous operation.
>>
>> As sage mentioned in <osd: new key/value
>> backend>(http://wiki.ceph.com/index.php?title=01Planning/
>> 02Blueprints/Firefly/osd:_new_key%2F%2Fvalue_backend),
>> more kv backends can be added now and I look forward to more people
>> interested it. I think radosgw situation can fit in kv store in short ti
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Wheat
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>



-- 

Best Regards,

Wheat
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to