Re: [ceph-users] ceph-fuse performance about hammer and jewel

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:23 PM, qisy wrote: > Yan, Zheng: > > Thanks for your reply. > But change into jewel, application read/write disk slowly. confirms the > fio tested iops. Does your application use buffered IO or direct IO? direct-IO in hammer actually is

Re: [ceph-users] ceph-fuse performance about hammer and jewel

Yan, Zheng: Thanks for your reply. But change into jewel, application read/write disk slowly. confirms the fio tested iops. Does there any other possibles? 在 16/6/1 21:39, Yan, Zheng 写道: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:52 PM, qisy wrote: my test fio fio

Re: [ceph-users] ceph-fuse performance about hammer and jewel

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:52 PM, qisy wrote: > my test fio > > fio -ioengine=libaio -bs=4k -direct=1 -thread -rw=randwrite -size=1G > -filename=test.iso -name="CEPH 4KB randwrite test" -iodepth=32 -runtime=60 > You were testing direct-IO performance. Hammer does not handle

[ceph-users] ceph-fuse performance about hammer and jewel

Hi, After jewel released fs product ready version, I upgrade the old hammer cluster, but iops droped a lot I made a test, with 3 nodes, each one have 8c 16G 1osd, the osd device got 15000 iops I found ceph-fuse client has better performance on hammer than jewel. fio