<n...@fisk.me.uk>
>> Cc: ceph-users <ceph-us...@ceph.com>
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Performance - pool with erasure/replicated type
>> pool
>>
>> Thanks for details.
>> What is the best suitable pool type for object storage?
>>
>> Than
gt; Sent: 24 January 2016 16:09
>> To: Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk>
>> Cc: ceph-users <ceph-us...@ceph.com>
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Performance - pool with erasure/replicated type
>> pool
>>
>> Thanks for details.
>> What is the best suitabl
; M Ranga Swami Reddy
> Sent: 24 January 2016 16:09
> To: Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk>
> Cc: ceph-users <ceph-us...@ceph.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Performance - pool with erasure/replicated type
> pool
>
> Thanks for details.
> What is the best suitable pool
eph-us...@ceph.com>
> Subject: [ceph-users] Performance - pool with erasure/replicated type pool
>
> Hello,
> I have 2 pools as below:
>
> 1. pool1 with erasure type
> 2. pool2 with replicated type
>
> I ran the "rados bench" with above 2 pool and the results
Hello,
I have 2 pools as below:
1. pool1 with erasure type
2. pool2 with replicated type
I ran the "rados bench" with above 2 pool and the results came as below:
- Read performance - around 60% better for replicated type pool ie pool2
- Write performance - around 50 % better for erasure type
t; All of these reasons tend to make reading slightly slower.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>> M Ranga Swami Reddy
>> Sent: 24 January 2016 15:09
>> To: ceph-users <ceph-us...@ceph.com>
>
