Yes of course thanks Mark Infrastructure : 5 servers with 10 sata disks (50 osd at all) - 10gb connected - EC 2+1 on rgw.buckets pool - 2 radosgw RR-DNS like installed on 2 cluster servers No SSD drives used
We're using Cosbench to send : - 8k object size : 100% read with 256 workers : better results with Hammer - 8k object size : 80% read - 20% write with 256 workers : real degradation between Firefly and Hammer (divided by something like 10) - 8k object size : 100% write with 256 workers : real degradation between Firefly and Hammer (divided by something like 10) Thanks Sent from my iPhone > On 14 juil. 2015, at 19:57, Mark Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 07/14/2015 06:42 PM, Florent MONTHEL wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I've just upgraded Ceph cluster from Firefly 0.80.8 (Redhat Ceph 1.2.3) to >> Hammer (Redhat Ceph 1.3) - Usage : radosgw with Apache 2.4.19 on MPM prefork >> mode >> I'm experiencing huge write performance degradation just after upgrade >> (Cosbench). >> >> Do you already run performance tests between Hammer and Firefly ? >> >> No problem with read performance that was amazing > > Hi Florent, > > Can you talk a little bit about how your write tests are setup? How many > concurrent IOs and what size? Also, do you see similar problems with rados > bench? > > We have done some testing and haven't seen significant performance > degradation except when switching to civetweb which appears to perform > deletes more slowly than what we saw with apache+fcgi. > > Mark > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
