Hi, some time ago I switched all OSDs from XFS to ext4 (step by step). I had no issues during mixed osd-format (the process takes some weeks).
And yes, for me ext4 performs also better (esp. the latencies). Udo Am 07.08.2015 13:31, schrieb Межов Игорь Александрович: > Hi! > > We do some performance tests on our small Hammer install: > - Debian Jessie; > - Ceph Hammer 0.94.2 self-built from sources (tcmalloc) > - 1xE5-2670 + 128Gb RAM > - 2 nodes shared with mons, system and mon DB are on separate SAS mirror; > - 16 OSD on each node, SAS 10k; > - 2 Intel DC S3700 200Gb SSD for journalling > - 10Gbit interconnect, shared public and cluster metwork, MTU9100 > - 10Gbit client host, fio 2.2.7 compiled with RBD engine > > We benchmark 4k random read performance on 500G RBD volume with fio-rbd > and got different results. When we use XFS > (noatime,attr2,inode64,allocsize=4096k, > noquota) on OSD disks, we can get ~7k sustained iops. After recreating the > same OSDs > with EXT4 fs (noatime,data=ordered) we can achieve ~9.5k iops in the same > benchmark. > > So there are some questions to community: > 1. Is really EXT4 perform better under typical RBD load (we Ceph to host VM > images)? > 2. Is it safe to intermix OSDs with different backingstore filesystems at > one cluster > (we use ceph-deploy to create and manage OSDs)? > 3. Is it safe to move our production cluster (Firefly 0.80.7) from XFS to > ext4 by > removing XFS osds one-by-one and later add the same disk drives as Ext4 OSDs > (of course, I know about huge data-movement that will take place during this > process)? > > Thanks! > > Megov Igor > CIO, Yuterra > > _______________________________________________ > 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
