To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com, Lazuardi Nasution
> <mrxlazuar...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] RBD Stripe/Chunk Size (Order Number) Pros
> Cons
> Message-ID: <100239228.47.1466160323...@ox.pcextreme.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-
reads at high speed. Works great for them.
Wido
> Anyway, I love coffee too :)
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 04:01:37 -0500
> > From: Mark Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com>
> > To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> > Subject: Re: [ceph-us
Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com>
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] RBD Stripe/Chunk Size (Order Number) Pros
> Cons
> Message-ID: <c0cbe267-474c-b9e1-b9e6-a4666a764...@redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
On 06/16/2016 03:54 AM, Mark Nelson wrote:
Hi,
larger stripe size (to an extent) will generally improve large
sequential read and write performance.
Oops, I should have had my coffee. I missed a sentence here. larger
strip size will generally improve large sequential read and write
Hi,
larger stripe size (to an extent) will generally improve large
sequential read and write performance. There's overhead though. It
means more objects which can slow things down at the filestore level
when PG splits occur and also potentially means more inodes fall out of
cache, longer
Hi,
I'm looking for some pros cons related to RBD stripe/chunk size indicated
by image order number. Default is 4MB (order 22), but OpenStack use 8MB
(order 23) as default. What if we use smaller size (lower order number),
isn't it more chance that image objects is spreaded through OSDs and
