After doing some more in deep research and tune some parameters I've gain a
little bit more of performance:
# fio --rw=randread --bs=1m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 --runtime=22
--time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1
--invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 --norandommap
--group_reporting --exitall --name
dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec
--filename=/mnt/e60host01vol1/test1
dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): rw=randread,
bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
...
dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): rw=randread,
bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.3
Starting 4 processes
dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: Laying out IO file(s) (1
file(s) / 16384MB)
Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [60.5% done] [*1714MB*/0KB/0KB /s] [1713/0/0 iops]
[eta 00m:15s]
dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (groupid=0, jobs=4): err=
0: pid=54857: Tue Nov 24 07:56:30 2015
read : io=38699MB, bw=1754.2MB/s, iops=1754, runt= 22062msec
slat (usec): min=131, max=63426, avg=2249.87, stdev=4320.91
clat (msec): min=2, max=321, avg=70.56, stdev=35.80
lat (msec): min=2, max=321, avg=72.81, stdev=36.13
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 13], 5.00th=[ 24], 10.00th=[ 30], 20.00th=[ 40],
| 30.00th=[ 50], 40.00th=[ 57], 50.00th=[ 65], 60.00th=[ 75],
| 70.00th=[ 85], 80.00th=[ 98], 90.00th=[ 120], 95.00th=[ 139],
| 99.00th=[ 178], 99.50th=[ 194], 99.90th=[ 229], 99.95th=[ 247],
| 99.99th=[ 273]
bw (KB /s): min=301056, max=612352, per=25.01%, avg=449291.87,
stdev=54288.85
lat (msec) : 4=0.11%, 10=0.61%, 20=2.11%, 50=27.87%, 100=50.92%
lat (msec) : 250=18.34%, 500=0.03%
cpu : usr=0.19%, sys=33.60%, ctx=66708, majf=0, minf=636
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.2%, 32=99.7%,
>=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=38699/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=38699MB, aggrb=*1754.2MB/s*, minb=1754.2MB/s, maxb=1754.2MB/s,
mint=22062msec, maxt=22062msec
Disk stats (read/write):
rbd1: ios=77386/17, merge=0/122, ticks=3168312/500, in_queue=3170168,
util=99.76%
The thing is that this test was running from a 'HP Blade enclosure with
QDR' so I think that if in QDR the max Throughput is around 3.2 GB/s (I
guess that this number must be divided by the total number of ports, in
this case 2, so a maximum of 1.6GB/s is the max of throughput that I'll get
on a single port, is that correct? Also I made another test in another host
that also had FDR so (max throughput would be around 6.8 GB/s), and if the
same theory is valid, that would lead me to 3.4 GB/s per port, but I'm not
getting more than 1.4 - 1.6 GB/s, any ideas? same tuning on both servers.
Basically I changed the scaling_governor of the cpufreq of all cpus to
'performance' and then set the following values:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps=0
sysctl -w net.core.netdev_max_backlog=250000
sysctl -w net.core.rmem_max=4194304
sysctl -w net.core.wmem_max=4194304
sysctl -w net.core.rmem_default=4194304
sysctl -w net.core.wmem_default=4194304
sysctl -w net.core.optmem_max=4194304
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_rmem="4096 87380 4194304"
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_wmem="4096 65536 4194304"
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_low_latency=1
However, on the HP blade, there's no Intel CPUs like the other server, so
this kind of 'tuning' can't be done, so I left it as a default and only
changed the TCP networking part.
Any comments or hint would be really appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Best,
*German*
2015-11-23 15:06 GMT-03:00 Robert LeBlanc <[email protected]>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Are you using unconnected mode or connected mode? With connected mode
> you can up your MTU to 64K which may help on the network side.
> - ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:40 AM, German Anders wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the quick response. Regarding the numbers that you send
> me,
> > they look REALLY nice. I've the following setup
> >
> > 4 OSD nodes:
> >
> > 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2650v2 @2.60Ghz
> > 1 x Network controller: Mellanox Technologies MT27500 Family [ConnectX-3]
> > Dual-Port (1 for PUB and 1 for CLUS)
> > 1 x SAS2308 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2
> > 8 x Intel SSD DC S3510 800GB (1 OSD on each drive + journal on the same
> > drive, so 1:1 relationship)
> > 3 x Intel SSD DC S3710 200GB (to be used maybe as a cache tier)
> > 128GB RAM
> >
> > [0:0:0:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 /dev/sdc
> > [0:0:1:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 /dev/sdd
> > [0:0:2:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 /dev/sde
> > [0:0:3:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdf
> > [0:0:4:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdg
> > [0:0:5:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdh
> > [0:0:6:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdi
> > [0:0:7:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdj
> > [0:0:8:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdk
> > [0:0:9:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdl
> > [0:0:10:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 /dev/sdm
> >
> > sdf 8:80 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdf1 8:81 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-16
> > `-sdf2 8:82 0 5G 0 part
> > sdg 8:96 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdg1 8:97 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-17
> > `-sdg2 8:98 0 5G 0 part
> > sdh 8:112 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdh1 8:113 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18
> > `-sdh2 8:114 0 5G 0 part
> > sdi 8:128 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdi1 8:129 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-19
> > `-sdi2 8:130 0 5G 0 part
> > sdj 8:144 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdj1 8:145 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-20
> > `-sdj2 8:146 0 5G 0 part
> > sdk 8:160 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdk1 8:161 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-21
> > `-sdk2 8:162 0 5G 0 part
> > sdl 8:176 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdl1 8:177 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-22
> > `-sdl2 8:178 0 5G 0 part
> > sdm 8:192 0 745.2G 0 disk
> > |-sdm1 8:193 0 740.2G 0 part
> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-23
> > `-sdm2 8:194 0 5G 0 part
> >
> >
> > $ rados bench -p rbd 20 write --no-cleanup -t 4
> > Maintaining 4 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes for up to 20 seconds
> or 0
> > objects
> > Object prefix: benchmark_data_cibm01_1409
> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat avg
> lat
> > 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
> 0
> > 1 4 121 117 467.894 468 0.0337203
> 0.0336809
> > 2 4 244 240 479.895 492 0.0304306
> 0.0330524
> > 3 4 372 368 490.559 512 0.0361914
> 0.0323822
> > 4 4 491 487 486.899 476 0.0346544
> 0.0327169
> > 5 4 587 583 466.302 384 0.110718
> 0.0342427
> > 6 4 701 697 464.575 456 0.0324953
> 0.0343136
> > 7 4 811 807 461.053 440 0.0400344
> 0.0345994
> > 8 4 923 919 459.412 448 0.0255677
> 0.0345767
> > 9 4 1032 1028 456.803 436 0.0309743
> 0.0349256
> > 10 4 1119 1115 445.917 348 0.229508
> 0.0357856
> > 11 4 1222 1218 442.826 412 0.0277902
> 0.0360635
> > 12 4 1315 1311 436.919 372 0.0303377
> 0.0365673
> > 13 4 1424 1420 436.842 436 0.0288001
> 0.03659
> > 14 4 1524 1520 434.206 400 0.0360993
> 0.0367697
> > 15 4 1632 1628 434.054 432 0.0296406
> 0.0366877
> > 16 4 1740 1736 433.921 432 0.0310995
> 0.0367746
> > 17 4 1836 1832 430.98 384 0.0250518
> 0.0370169
> > 18 4 1941 1937 430.366 420 0.027502
> 0.0371341
> > 19 4 2049 2045 430.448 432 0.0260257
> 0.0370807
> > 2015-11-23 12:10:58.587087min lat: 0.0229266 max lat: 0.27063 avg lat:
> > 0.0373936
> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat avg
> lat
> > 20 4 2141 2137 427.322 368 0.0351276
> 0.0373936
> > Total time run: 20.186437
> > Total writes made: 2141
> > Write size: 4194304
> > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 424.245
> >
> > Stddev Bandwidth: 102.136
> > Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 512
> > Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0
> > Average Latency: 0.0376536
> > Stddev Latency: 0.032886
> > Max latency: 0.27063
> > Min latency: 0.0229266
> >
> >
> > $ rados bench -p rbd 20 seq --no-cleanup -t 4
> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat avg
> lat
> > 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
> 0
> > 1 4 394 390 1559.52 1560 0.0148888
> 0.0102236
> > 2 4 753 749 1496.68 1436 0.0129162
> 0.0106595
> > 3 4 1137 1133 1509.65 1536 0.0101854
> 0.0105731
> > 4 4 1526 1522 1521.17 1556 0.0122154
> 0.0103827
> > 5 4 1890 1886 1508.07 14560.00825445
> 0.0105908
> > Total time run: 5.675418
> > Total reads made: 2141
> > Read size: 4194304
> > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 1508.964
> >
> > Average Latency: 0.0105951
> > Max latency: 0.211469
> > Min latency: 0.00603694
> >
> >
> > I'm not even close to those numbers that you are getting... :( any
> ideas? or
> > hints? Also I've configured NOOP as the scheduler for all the SSD disks.
> I
> > don't know really what else to look for, in order to improve performance
> and
> > get some similar numbers from what you are getting
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > German
> >
> > 2015-11-23 13:32 GMT-03:00 Mark Nelson :
> >>
> >> Hi German,
> >>
> >> I don't have exactly the same setup, but on the ceph community cluster I
> >> have tests with:
> >>
> >> 4 nodes, each of which are configured in some tests with:
> >>
> >> 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2650
> >> 1 x Intel XL710 40GbE (currently limited to about 2.5GB/s each)
> >> 1 x Intel P3700 800GB (4 OSDs per card using 4 data and 4 journal
> >> partitions)
> >> 64GB RAM
> >>
> >> With filestore, I can get an aggregate throughput of:
> >>
> >> 1MB randread: 8715.3MB/s
> >> 4MB randread: 8046.2MB/s
> >>
> >> This is with 4 fio instances on the same nodes as the OSDs using the fio
> >> librbd engine.
> >>
> >> A couple of things I would suggest trying:
> >>
> >> 1) See how rados bench does. This is an easy test and you can see how
> >> different the numbers look.
> >>
> >> 2) try fio with librbd to see if it might be a qemu limitation.
> >>
> >> 3) Assuming you are using IPoIB, try some iperf tests to see how your
> >> network is doing.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/23/2015 10:17 AM, German Anders wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot for the quick update Greg. This lead me to ask if there's
> >>> anything out there to improve performance in an Infiniband environment
> >>> with Ceph. In the cluster that I mentioned earlier. I've setup 4 OSD
> >>> server nodes nodes each with 8 OSD daemons running with 800x Intel SSD
> >>> DC S3710 disks (740.2G for OSD and 5G for Journal) and also using IB
> FDR
> >>> 56Gb/s for the PUB and CLUS network, and I'm getting the following fio
> >>> numbers:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> # fio --rw=randread --bs=1m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 --runtime=22
> >>> --time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1
> >>> --invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 --norandommap
> >>> --group_reporting --exitall --name
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec
> >>> --filename=/mnt/rbd/test1
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): rw=randread,
> >>> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>> ...
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): rw=randread,
> >>> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>> fio-2.1.3
> >>> Starting 4 processes
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: Laying out IO file(s)
> >>> (1 file(s) / 16384MB)
> >>> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [33.8% done] [1082MB/0KB/0KB /s] [1081/0/0 iops]
> >>> [eta 00m:45s]
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (groupid=0, jobs=4):
> >>> err= 0: pid=63852: Mon Nov 23 10:48:07 2015
> >>> read : io=21899MB, bw=988.23MB/s, iops=988, runt= 22160msec
> >>> slat (usec): min=192, max=186274, avg=3990.48, stdev=7533.77
> >>> clat (usec): min=10, max=808610, avg=125099.41, stdev=90717.56
> >>> lat (msec): min=6, max=809, avg=129.09, stdev=91.14
> >>> clat percentiles (msec):
> >>> | 1.00th=[ 27], 5.00th=[ 38], 10.00th=[ 45], 20.00th=[
> >>> 61],
> >>> | 30.00th=[ 74], 40.00th=[ 85], 50.00th=[ 100], 60.00th=[
> >>> 117],
> >>> | 70.00th=[ 141], 80.00th=[ 174], 90.00th=[ 235], 95.00th=[
> >>> 297],
> >>> | 99.00th=[ 482], 99.50th=[ 578], 99.90th=[ 717], 99.95th=[
> >>> 750],
> >>> | 99.99th=[ 775]
> >>> bw (KB /s): min=134691, max=335872, per=25.08%, avg=253748.08,
> >>> stdev=40454.88
> >>> lat (usec) : 20=0.01%
> >>> lat (msec) : 10=0.02%, 20=0.27%, 50=12.90%, 100=36.93%, 250=41.39%
> >>> lat (msec) : 500=7.59%, 750=0.84%, 1000=0.05%
> >>> cpu : usr=0.11%, sys=26.76%, ctx=39695, majf=0, minf=405
> >>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.3%, 32=99.4%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> issued : total=r=21899/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>
> >>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>> READ: io=21899MB, aggrb=988.23MB/s, minb=988.23MB/s,
> >>> maxb=988.23MB/s, mint=22160msec, maxt=22160msec
> >>>
> >>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>> rbd1: ios=43736/163, merge=0/5, ticks=3189484/15276,
> >>> in_queue=3214988, util=99.78%
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ############################################################################################################################################################
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> # fio --rw=randread --bs=4m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 --runtime=22
> >>> --time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1
> >>> --invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 --norandommap
> >>> --group_reporting --exitall --name
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec
> >>> --filename=/mnt/rbd/test2
> >>>
> >>> fio-2.1.3
> >>> Starting 4 processes
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: Laying out IO file(s)
> >>> (1 file(s) / 16384MB)
> >>> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [28.7% done] [894.3MB/0KB/0KB /s] [223/0/0 iops]
> >>> [eta 00m:57s]
> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (groupid=0, jobs=4):
> >>> err= 0: pid=64654: Mon Nov 23 10:51:58 2015
> >>> read : io=18952MB, bw=876868KB/s, iops=214, runt= 22132msec
> >>> slat (usec): min=518, max=81398, avg=18576.88, stdev=14840.55
> >>> clat (msec): min=90, max=1915, avg=570.37, stdev=166.51
> >>> lat (msec): min=123, max=1936, avg=588.95, stdev=169.19
> >>> clat percentiles (msec):
> >>> | 1.00th=[ 258], 5.00th=[ 343], 10.00th=[ 383], 20.00th=[
> >>> 437],
> >>> | 30.00th=[ 482], 40.00th=[ 519], 50.00th=[ 553], 60.00th=[
> >>> 594],
> >>> | 70.00th=[ 627], 80.00th=[ 685], 90.00th=[ 775], 95.00th=[
> >>> 865],
> >>> | 99.00th=[ 1057], 99.50th=[ 1156], 99.90th=[ 1680], 99.95th=[
> >>> 1860],
> >>> | 99.99th=[ 1909]
> >>> bw (KB /s): min= 5665, max=383251, per=24.61%, avg=215755.74,
> >>> stdev=61735.70
> >>> lat (msec) : 100=0.02%, 250=0.80%, 500=33.88%, 750=53.31%,
> >>> 1000=10.26%
> >>> lat (msec) : 2000=1.73%
> >>> cpu : usr=0.07%, sys=12.52%, ctx=32466, majf=0, minf=372
> >>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.2%, 4=0.3%, 8=0.7%, 16=1.4%, 32=97.4%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=99.9%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
> >>> >=64=0.0%
> >>> issued : total=r=4738/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>
> >>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>> READ: io=18952MB, aggrb=876868KB/s, minb=876868KB/s,
> >>> maxb=876868KB/s, mint=22132msec, maxt=22132msec
> >>>
> >>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>> rbd1: ios=37721/177, merge=0/5, ticks=3075924/11408,
> >>> in_queue=3097448, util=99.77%
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone share some results from a similar environment?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> **
> >>>
> >>> *German*
> >>>
> >>> 2015-11-23 13:08 GMT-03:00 Gregory Farnum >> >:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:05 AM, German Anders
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >
> >>> > I want to know if there's any improvement or update regarding
> ceph
> >>> 0.94.5
> >>> > with accelio, I've an already configured cluster (with no data on
> >>> it) and I
> >>> > would like to know if there's a way to 'modify' the cluster in
> >>> order to use
> >>> > accelio. Any info would be really appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> The XioMessenger is still experimental. As far as I know it's not
> >>> expected to be stable any time soon and I can't imagine it will be
> >>> backported to Hammer even when done.
> >>> -Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ceph-users mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.3
> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>
> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWU1WqCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAo5cQALjuZB+dyjbcRDyScvj/
> qjurMqCHlScgG9U8CE4L6/E/QUfCNmdvE4KaeQC82oj/SplXYOuglTHJkUMg
> KPyjb9jJs+ZyS560IoUB/l/XQZpO9WL+DNnSAg96Hpb3eG+G5jukW9/E/QHQ
> aDjn/c1njEqUhxMAosUFZR58CxejyyI5Vr/SXX+oE6y2tCF31Z3KPiOVTOtj
> BPIx74xpigXMSP+zaK4UelhjPzrRnefkN2sLpQS5uwJlOY1f35KoM3dX+LHO
> 2BWpyrLUtL6ZzpalKr/QbaWko1VM109vjAoPZ3X82ig9DZp2DW8ZVX4abVcy
> +Zyre4SCncKFJZcL9VkQHPJxRFhqXHC43mpSHIKmhuhmGVwr9ngiKGUY1Q7t
> O0aks06KHfqSRxjWmuhtP0eMLwsH7gLAEqqtAjnIhRTCDDkhRdp/MdZJ7ftO
> LHF9+Eqdp/KiVrGK7BX9zwVshr608bR4g7JCfK4/ukSHXOWFVR6GZ8jue85q
> e6dWhHsdwrPt1QnSrfhnKjoMdhTpvPVzlxqo2jHDXEyE57RxW/zXr776HxcQ
> cISj4zDZ0nGZ1F8w4DdB0ql8CpsCDAEoaNG0ZQPXcItyrHIB0lFOJYDi5m+4
> YqOCG8TWh7b28IbEEwwUSpx3pi2iyH0ObJZM5dgf62AOCKCEsixf+UguFVwd
> /jdL
> =6LtO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
