These are valid points, thank you for the input! /Z
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:39 AM Stefan Kooman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/6/21 09:23, Zakhar Kirpichenko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Indeed, that's a lot of CPU and RAM, the idea was to put sufficient > > resources in case we want to expand the nodes with more storage and do > > EC. I guess having excessive resources shouldn't hurt performance? :-) > > That was also my take. Untill an (Oracle) DBA explained to me that in > cases were you don't use / need the cache, it can hurt performance as it > still costs resources to manage the cache. When using linux (with buffer > cache enabled) RAM probably won't go to waste. > > My modus operandi is "no better kill than overkill" ... but on the other > hand, you seem to want to optimize performance, not necessarily fill > both CPU sockets. For a Ceph storage node I would want to have more OSDs > instead of more memory / CPU (as long as there is plenty). Not sure if > you run into any NUMA issues here, but a single socket system with say > anywhere between 16-64 cores seem like a better fit. If you're going to > attach a JBOD and add way more disks, then sure, you might need all > these resources. But in that case I would still wonder if more nodes > with less resources would be a better fit. Just thinking out loud here, > although indirectly related to performance, not directly answering your > disappointing I/O performance thread. > > Gr. Stefan > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
