Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

n Balzer > <ch...@gol.com> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] > suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad > > HI Nick, > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > However, there are a number of pain

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

example ~30ms is still a bit high. I wonder if > the default queue depths on your iSCSI target are too low as well? > > Nick > >> -Original Message- >> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of >> Oliver Dzombic >> S

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

> -Original Message- > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of > Lars Marowsky-Bree > Sent: 04 July 2016 11:36 > To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] > suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad >

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

On 2016-07-01T19:11:34, Nick Fisk wrote: > To summarise, > > LIO is just not working very well at the moment because of the ABORT Tasks > problem, this will hopefully be fixed at some point. I'm not sure if SUSE > works around this, but see below for other pain points with

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

On 2016-07-01T17:18:19, Christian Balzer wrote: > First off, it's somewhat funny that you're testing the repackaged SUSE > Ceph, but asking for help here (with Ceph being owned by Red Hat). *cough* Ceph is not owned by RH. RH acquired the InkTank team and the various trademarks,

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

> -Original Message- > From: mq [mailto:maoqi1...@126.com] > Sent: 04 July 2016 08:13 > To: Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] > suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad > > Hi Nick > i have test NFS: since NFS

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

.ceph.com] On Behalf Of > Oliver Dzombic > Sent: 01 July 2016 09:27 > To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] > suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad > > Hi, > > my experience: > > ceph + iscsi ( multipath ) + vmware == worst &

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

HI 1. 2 sw iscsi gateways(deploy on osd/monitor ) using lrbd to create,the iscsi target is LIO configuration: { "auth": [ { "target": "iqn.2016-07.org.linux-iscsi.iscsi.x86:testvol", "authentication": "none" } ], "targets": [ { "target":

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

Hi, my experience: ceph + iscsi ( multipath ) + vmware == worst Better you search for another solution. vmware + nfs + vmware might have a much better performance. If you are able to get vmware run with iscsi and ceph, i would be >>very<< intrested in what/how you did that. -- Mit

Re: [ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

Hello, On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:04:45 +0800 mq wrote: > Hi list > I have tested suse enterprise storage3 using 2 iscsi gateway attached > to vmware. The performance is bad. First off, it's somewhat funny that you're testing the repackaged SUSE Ceph, but asking for help here (with Ceph being

[ceph-users] suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad

Hi list I have tested suse enterprise storage3 using 2 iscsi gateway attached to vmware. The performance is bad. I have turn off VAAI following the (https://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US=displayKC=1033665)