Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Hi Roos, I will try with the configuration, thank you very much! Best Regards, Dave Chen -Original Message- From: Marc Roos Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:37 PM To: ceph-users; Chen2, Dave Subject: RE: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal [EXTERNAL

Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Thanks Mokhtar! This is what I am looking for, thanks for your explanation! Best Regards, Dave Chen From: Maged Mokhtar Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:36 PM To: Chen2, Dave; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Thanks Martin for your suggestion! I will definitely try bluestore later. The version of Ceph I am using is v10.2.10 Jewel, do you think it’s stable enough to use Bluestore for Jewel or should I upgrade Ceph to Luminous? Best Regards, Dave Chen From: Martin Verges Sent: Wednesday, November

Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Thanks Merrick! I haven’t tried the blue store but I believe what you said, I tried again with “rbd bench-write” with filestore, the result has more than 50% performance increase with the SSD as the journal, so I am still cannot understand why “rados bench” cannot give us any difference,

Re: [ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Thanks Merrick! I checked with Intel spec [1], the performance Intel said is, • Sequential Read (up to) 500 MB/s • Sequential Write (up to) 330 MB/s • Random Read (100% Span) 72000 IOPS • Random Write (100% Span) 2 IOPS I think these indicator should be must better than general HDD, and

[ceph-users] Benchmark performance when using SSD as the journal

Hi all, We want to compare the performance between HDD partition as the journal (inline from OSD disk) and SSD partition as the journal, here is what we have done, we have 3 nodes used as Ceph OSD, each has 3 OSD on it. Firstly, we created the OSD with journal from OSD partition, and run

[ceph-users] Migrate OSD journal to SSD partition

Hi all, I have been trying to migrate the journal to SSD partition for an while, basically I followed the guide here [1], I have the below configuration defined in the ceph.conf [osd.0] osd_journal = /dev/disk/by-partlabel/journal-1 And then create the journal in this way, # ceph-osd -i 0

Re: [ceph-users] PG status is "active+undersized+degraded"

I saw these statement from this link ( http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/crush-map/ ), it that the reason which leads to the warning? " This, combined with the default CRUSH failure domain, ensures that replicas or erasure code shards are separated across hosts and a single

Re: [ceph-users] PG status is "active+undersized+degraded"

Hi Burkhard, Thanks for your explanation, I created an new OSD with 2TB from another node, it truly solved the issue, the status of Ceph cluster is " health HEALTH_OK" now. Another question is if three homogeneous OSD is spread across 2 nodes, I still got the warning message, and the status

[ceph-users] PG status is "active+undersized+degraded"

Hi all, I have setup a ceph cluster in my lab recently, the configuration per my understanding should be okay, 4 OSD across 3 nodes, 3 replicas, but couple of PG stuck with state "active+undersized+degraded", I think this should be very generic issue, could anyone help me out? Here is the

[ceph-users] OSD down with Ceph version of Kraken

Hi, Our Ceph version is Kraken and for the storage node we have up to 90 hard disks that can be used for OSD, we configured the messenger type as "simple", I noticed that "simple" type here might create lots of threads and hence occupied lots of resource, we observed the configuration will