On 20 December 2015 at 08:35, Francois Lafont <flafdiv...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > On 18/12/2015 23:26, Don Waterloo wrote: > > > rbd -p mypool create speed-test-image --size 1000 > > rbd -p mypool bench-write speed-test-image > > > > I get > > > > bench-write io_size 4096 io_threads 16 bytes 1073741824 pattern seq > > SEC OPS OPS/SEC BYTES/SEC > > 1 79053 79070.82 323874082.50 > > 2 144340 72178.81 295644410.60 > > 3 221975 73997.57 303094057.34 > > elapsed: 10 ops: 262144 ops/sec: 26129.32 bytes/sec: 107025708.32 > > > > which is *much* faster than the cephfs. > > Me too, I have better performance with rbd (~1400 iops with the fio command > in my first message instead of ~575 iops with the same fio command and > cephfs). > I did a bit more work on this. On cephfs-fuse, I get ~700 iops. On cephfs kernel, I get ~120 iops. These were both on 4.3 kernel So i backed up to 3.16 kernel on the client. And observed the same results. So ~20K iops w/ rbd, ~120iops w/ cephfs.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
