Good point on encryption. Disabling encryption which I believe is done outside of the registry (as an AWS KMS key is used) has improved performance dramatically.
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 at 05:40 Clayton Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: > In general, S3 should be as efficient for the registry than EBS, and far > more operationally easy (it also scales out horizontally). > > I don't know whether the encrypt option is done on the registry side - > have you compared running with or without? > > It's currently fairly difficult to move between backends - it's possible, > but there's a lot of manual work you'd have to do. I'm sure someone in the > ecosystem has written a tool, but it's probably not efficient. > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Lau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Does anyone have any comparisons of s3 registry performance? We've found > it to be quite slow, at least 2-3 times longer then using something like an > EBS volume. Here's the config being used: > > encrypt: true > secure: true > v4auth: true > chunksize: 26214400 > > I stumbled across BZ 1314381 ( > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314381) perhaps that could > be one reason for slow performance. > > Is it possible to migrate between different storage backends or is it > something that needs to be decided initially? > > Thanks! > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
