Thank you for your attention.
Our test are in run in physical machine environments.
Fio for KRBD:
[seq-write]
description="seq-write"
direct=1
ioengine=libaio
filename=/dev/rbd0
numjobs=1
iodepth=256
group_reporting
rw=write
bs=4M
size=10T
runtime=180
*/dev/rbd0 mapped by rbd_pool/image2, so KRBD & librbd fio test use the same
image.
Fio for librbd:
[global]
direct=1
numjobs=1
ioengine=rbd
clientname=admin
pool=rbd_pool
rbdname=image2
invalidate=0 # mandatory
rw=write
bs=4M
size=10T
runtime=180
[rbd_iodepth32]
iodepth=256
Image info:
rbd image 'image2':
size 50TiB in 13107200 objects
order 22 (4MiB objects)
data_pool: ec_rbd_pool
block_name_prefix: rbd_data.8.148bb6b8b4567
format: 2
features: layering, data-pool
flags:
create_timestamp: Wed Nov 14 09:21:18 2018
* data_pool is a EC pool
Pool info:
pool 8 'rbd_pool' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 0 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 256 pgp_num 256 last_change 82627 flags hashpspool stripe_width
0 application rbd
pool 9 'ec_rbd_pool' erasure size 6 min_size 5 crush_rule 4 object_hash
rjenkins pg_num 256 pgp_num 256 last_change 82649 flags
hashpspool,ec_overwrites stripe_width 16384 application rbd
Rbd cache: Off (Because I think in tcmu , rbd cache will mandatory off, and our
cluster will export disk by iscsi in furture.)
Thanks!
> 在 2018年11月15日，下午1:22，Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> 写道：
>
> You'll need to provide more data about how your test is configured and run
> for us to have a good idea. IIRC librbd is often faster than krbd because it
> can support newer features and things, but krbd may have less overhead and is
> not dependent on the VM's driver configuration in QEMU...
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:22 AM 赵赵贺东 <zhaohed...@gmail.com
> <mailto:zhaohed...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi cephers,
>
>
> All our cluster osds are deployed in armhf.
> Could someone say something about what is the rational performance rates for
> librbd VS KRBD ?
> Or rational performance loss range when we use librbd compare to KRBD.
> I googled a lot, but I could not find a solid criterion.
> In fact , it confused me for a long time.
>
> About our tests:
> In a small cluster(12 osds), 4m seq write performance for Librbd VS KRBD is
> about 0.89 : 1 (177MB/s : 198MB/s ).
> In a big cluster (72 osds), 4m seq write performance for Librbd VS KRBD is
> about 0.38: 1 (420MB/s : 1080MB/s).
>
> We expect even increase osd numbers, Librbd performance can keep being close
> to KRBD.
>
> PS: Librbd performance are tested both in fio rbd engine & iscsi
> (tcmu+librbd).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <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
