On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Mark Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 04/15/2015 08:16 AM, Jake Young wrote: > >> Has anyone compiled ceph (either osd or client) on a Solaris based OS? >> >> The thread on ZFS support for osd got me thinking about using solaris as >> an osd server. It would have much better ZFS performance and I wonder if >> the osd performance without a journal would be 2x better. >> > > Doubt it. You may be able to do a little better, but you have to pay the > piper some how. If you clone from journal you will introduce > fragmentation. If you throw the journal away you'll suffer for everything > but very large writes unless you throw safety away. I think if we are > going to generally beat filestore (not just for optimal benchmarking > tests!) it's going to take some very careful cleverness. Thankfully Sage is > very clever and is working on it in newstore. Even there, filestore has > been proving difficult to beat for writes. That's interesting. I've been under the impression that the ideal osd config was using a stable and fast BTRFS (which doesn't exist yet) with no journal. In my specific case, I don't want to use an external journal. I've gone down the path of using RAID controllers with write-back cache and BBUs with each disk in its own RAID0 group, instead of SSD journals. (Thanks for your performance articles BTW, they were very helpful!) My take on your results indicates that IO throughput performance on XFS with same disk journal and WB cache on the RAID card was basically the same or better than BTRFS with no journal. In addition, BTRFS typically used much more CPU. Has BTRFS performance gotten any better since you wrote the performance articles? Have you compared ZFS (ZoL) performance to BTRFS?
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
