Thanks Merrick! I haven’t tried the blue store but I believe what you said, I tried again with “rbd bench-write” with filestore, the result has more than 50% performance increase with the SSD as the journal, so I am still cannot understand why “rados bench” cannot give us any difference, what’s the rationale behind it? Do you know that?
Best Regards, Dave Chen From: Ashley Merrick <singap...@amerrick.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:49 PM To: Chen2, Dave Cc: ceph-users Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive information. Well as you mentioned Journals I guess you was using filestore in your test? You could go down the route of bluestore and put the WAL + DB onto the SSD and the bluestore data onto the HD, you should notice an increase in performance over both methods you have tried on filestore. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM <dave.c...@dell.com<mailto:dave.c...@dell.com>> wrote: Thanks Merrick! I checked with Intel spec [1], the performance Intel said is, • Sequential Read (up to) 500 MB/s • Sequential Write (up to) 330 MB/s • Random Read (100% Span) 72000 IOPS • Random Write (100% Span) 20000 IOPS I think these indicator should be must better than general HDD, and I have run read/write commands with “rados bench” respectively, there should be some difference. And is there any kinds of configuration that could give us any performance gain with this SSD (Intel S4500)? [1] https://ark.intel.com/products/120521/Intel-SSD-DC-S4500-Series-480GB-2-5in-SATA-6Gb-s-3D1-TLC- Best Regards, Dave Chen From: Ashley Merrick <singap...@amerrick.co.uk<mailto:singap...@amerrick.co.uk>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:30 PM To: Chen2, Dave Cc: ceph-users Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive information. Only certain SSD's are good for CEPH Journals as can be seen @ https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/ The SSD your using isn't listed but doing a quick search online it appears to be a SSD designed for read workloads as a "upgrade" from a HD so probably is not designed for the high write requirements a journal demands. Therefore when it's been hit by 3 OSD's of workloads your not going to get much more performance out of it than you would just using the disk as your seeing. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM <dave.c...@dell.com<mailto:dave.c...@dell.com>> wrote: Hi all, We want to compare the performance between HDD partition as the journal (inline from OSD disk) and SSD partition as the journal, here is what we have done, we have 3 nodes used as Ceph OSD, each has 3 OSD on it. Firstly, we created the OSD with journal from OSD partition, and run “rados bench” utility to test the performance, and then migrate the journal from HDD to SSD (Intel S4500) and run “rados bench” again, the expected result is SSD partition should be much better than HDD, but the result shows us there is nearly no change, The configuration of Ceph is as below, pool size: 3 osd size: 3*3 pg (pgp) num: 300 osd nodes are separated across three different nodes rbd image size: 10G (10240M) The utility I used is, rados bench -p rbd $duration write rados bench -p rbd $duration seq rados bench -p rbd $duration rand Is there anything wrong from what I did? Could anyone give me some suggestion? Best Regards, Dave Chen _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com<mailto: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
