Hi Luis,
I am reading reading some documentation about mClock and have two questions.
>
> First, about the IOPS. Are those IOPS disk IOPS or other kind of IOPS? And
> what the assumption of those? (Like block size, sequential or random
> reads/writes)?
>
This is the result of testing running OSD
Hi Sridhar
Thanks for the information.
>
> The above values are a result of distributing the IOPS across all the OSD
> shards as defined by the
> osd_op_num_shards_[hdd|ssd] option. For HDDs, this is set to 5 and
> therefore the IOPS will be
> distributed across the 5 shards (i.e. for e.g., 675/
Why was it done that way? I do not understand the reason why distributing
> the IOPS accross different disks, when the measurement we have is for one
> disk alone. This means with default parameters we will always be far from
> reaching OSD limit right?
>
> It's not on different disks. We distribut
Hi,
Thanks a lot for the information.
I have a last question. Why is the bench performed using writes of 4 KiB. Is
any reason to choose that over another another value?
On my lab, I tested with various values, and I have mainly two type of disks.
Some Seagates and Toshiba.
If I do bench with
Responses inline.
I have a last question. Why is the bench performed using writes of 4 KiB.
> Is any reason to choose that over another another value?
>
> Yes, the mClock scheduler considers this as a baseline in order to
estimate costs for operations involving other block sizes.
This is again an
