How big were the writes in the windows test and how much concurrency was
there?
Historically bluestore does pretty well for us with small random writes
so your write results surprise me a bit. I suspect it's the low queue
depth. Sometimes bluestore does worse with reads, especially if
readahead isn't enabled on the client.
Mark
On 11/14/2017 03:14 PM, Milanov, Radoslav Nikiforov wrote:
Hi Mark,
Yes RBD is in write back, and the only thing that changed was converting OSDs
to bluestore. It is 7200 rpm drives and triple replication. I also get same
results (bluestore 2 times slower) testing continuous writes on a 40GB
partition on a Windows VM, completely different tool.
Right now I'm going back to filestore for the OSDs so additional tests are
possible if that helps.
- Rado
-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:04 PM
To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Bluestore performance 50% of filestore
Hi Radoslav,
Is RBD cache enabled and in writeback mode? Do you have client side readahead?
Both are doing better for writes than you'd expect from the native performance
of the disks assuming they are typical 7200RPM drives and you are using 3X
replication (~150IOPS * 27 / 3 = ~1350 IOPS). Given the small file size, I'd
expect that you might be getting better journal coalescing in filestore.
Sadly I imagine you can't do a comparison test at this point, but I'd be
curious how it would look if you used libaio with a high iodepth and a much
bigger partition to do random writes over.
Mark
On 11/14/2017 01:54 PM, Milanov, Radoslav Nikiforov wrote:
Hi
We have 3 node, 27 OSDs cluster running Luminous 12.2.1
In filestore configuration there are 3 SSDs used for journals of 9
OSDs on each hosts (1 SSD has 3 journal paritions for 3 OSDs).
I've converted filestore to bluestore by wiping 1 host a time and
waiting for recovery. SSDs now contain block-db - again one SSD
serving
3 OSDs.
Cluster is used as storage for Openstack.
Running fio on a VM in that Openstack reveals bluestore performance
almost twice slower than filestore.
fio --name fio_test_file --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --size=1G
--numjobs=2 --time_based --runtime=180 --group_reporting
fio --name fio_test_file --direct=1 --rw=randread --bs=4k --size=1G
--numjobs=2 --time_based --runtime=180 --group_reporting
Filestore
write: io=3511.9MB, bw=19978KB/s, iops=4994, runt=180001msec
write: io=3525.6MB, bw=20057KB/s, iops=5014, runt=180001msec
write: io=3554.1MB, bw=20222KB/s, iops=5055, runt=180016msec
read : io=1995.7MB, bw=11353KB/s, iops=2838, runt=180001msec
read : io=1824.5MB, bw=10379KB/s, iops=2594, runt=180001msec
read : io=1966.5MB, bw=11187KB/s, iops=2796, runt=180001msec
Bluestore
write: io=1621.2MB, bw=9222.3KB/s, iops=2305, runt=180002msec
write: io=1576.3MB, bw=8965.6KB/s, iops=2241, runt=180029msec
write: io=1531.9MB, bw=8714.3KB/s, iops=2178, runt=180001msec
read : io=1279.4MB, bw=7276.5KB/s, iops=1819, runt=180006msec
read : io=773824KB, bw=4298.9KB/s, iops=1074, runt=180010msec
read : io=1018.5MB, bw=5793.7KB/s, iops=1448, runt=180001msec
- Rado
_______________________________________________
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
