Ok, that makes sense for the OSD IO latency values. But I'm confused about the
recoverystate_perf latency values.
For example:
"started_latency": { "avgcount": 296,
"sum": 86047405.517876000},
"primary_latency": { "avgcount": 240,
"sum": 53489945.222530000},
If these values are in seconds, I don't think the latency should be anywhere
near that high. 290700 seconds > 3 days.
86047405.517876000 / 296 = 290700.694317 seconds?
53489945.222530000 / 240 = 222874.771761 seconds?
Thanks,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Haomai Wang [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:29 PM
To: Dan Ryder (daryder)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Low latency values
yes
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Dan Ryder (daryder) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Haomai,
>
> So are all latency values calculated in seconds?
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haomai Wang [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:20 AM
> To: Dan Ryder (daryder)
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Low latency values
>
> 178/184229=0.00097 s = 0.97ms
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Dan Ryder (daryder) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m seeing really low latency values, to the extent that they don’t
>> seem realistic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Snippet from the latest perf dump for this OSD:
>>
>>
>>
>> "op_r_latency": { "avgcount": 184229,
>>
>> "sum": 178.077710000},
>>
>>
>>
>> Long run avg = 178.07771/184229 = 0.00097 ms? Is it correct that
>> latency values have milliseconds as units?
>>
>> If so, this number seems too small.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Wheat
--
Best Regards,
Wheat
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
