Hi Christian,
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Balzer [mailto:ch...@gol.com]
> Sent: 07 July 2016 12:57
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Cc: Nick Fisk
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] multiple journals on SSD
>
>
> Hello Nick,
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 20
Hi All,
Does anybody else see a massive (ie 10x) performance impact when either
deleting a RBD or running something like mkfs.xfs against an
existing RBD, which would zero/discard all blocks?
In the case of deleting a 4TB RBD, I'm seeing latency in some cases rise up to
10s.
It looks
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Matyas Koszik
> Sent: 07 July 2016 11:26
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] layer3 network
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> My setup uses a layer3 network, where each node has two conn
Just to add if you really want to go with lots of HDD's to Journals then go
NVME. They are not a lot more expensive than the equivalent SATA based
3700's, but the latency is low low low. Here is an example of a node I have
just commissioned with 12 HDD's to one P3700
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Gorbachev [mailto:a...@iss-integration.com]
> Sent: 04 July 2016 22:00
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Oliver Dzombic ; ceph-users us...@lists.ceph.com>; mq ; Christian Balzer
>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users]
> suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Alex Gorbachev
> Sent: 04 July 2016 20:50
> To: Campbell Steven
> Cc: ceph-users ; Tim Bishop li...@bishnet.net>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Is anyone seeing iissues with
> task_numa_find_cpu
> On 2016-07-01T19:11:34, Nick Fisk wrote:
>
> > To summarise,
> >
> > LIO is just not working very well at the moment because of the ABORT
> > Tasks problem, this will hopefully be fixed at some point. I'm not
> > sure if SUSE works around this, but see
gt;
>
> > Op 4 juli 2016 om 9:25 schreef Nick Fisk :
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Quick question. I'm currently in the process of getting ready to
> > deploy a 2nd cluster, which at some point in the next 12 months, I
> > will want to enable
Hi All,
Quick question. I'm currently in the process of getting ready to deploy a
2nd cluster, which at some point in the next 12 months, I will want to
enable RBD mirroring between the new and existing clusters. I'm leaning
towards deploying this new cluster with IPv6, because Wido says so ;-)
> -Original Message-
> From: mq [mailto:maoqi1...@126.com]
> Sent: 04 July 2016 08:13
> To: Nick Fisk
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users]
> suse_enterprise_storage3_rbd_LIO_vmware_performance_bad
>
> Hi Nick
> i have test NFS: since NFS cannot choose Eager Zeroed Thic
To summarise,
LIO is just not working very well at the moment because of the ABORT Tasks
problem, this will hopefully be fixed at some point. I'm not sure if SUSE works
around this, but see below for other pain points with RBD + ESXi + iSCSI
TGT is easy to get going, but performance isn't the b
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Schneller
> Sent: 27 June 2016 17:33
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Pinpointing performance bottleneck / would SSD
> journals help?
>
> On 2016-06-27 16:01:
Hi All,
Does anybody know if calling a blockdev --flushbufs on a rbd-nbd device
causes the librbd read cache to be invalidated?
I've done a quick test and the invalidate_cache counter doesn't increment
like when you send the invalidate command via the admin socket.
Thanks,
Nick
There is a journal_bytes counter for the OSD, or the journal_full counter
will show if you have ever filled the journal.
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
David Turner
Sent: 20 June 2016 17:02
To: EP Komarla ; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-u
> -Original Message-
> From: Gandalf Corvotempesta [mailto:gandalf.corvotempe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 June 2016 22:13
> To: n...@fisk.me.uk
> Cc: ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Switches and latency
>
> 2016-06-15 22:59 GMT+02:00 Nick Fisk :
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gandalf Corvotempesta [mailto:gandalf.corvotempe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 June 2016 21:33
> To: n...@fisk.me.uk
> Cc: ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Switches and latency
>
> 2016-06-15 22:13 GMT+02:00 Nick Fisk :
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Gandalf Corvotempesta
> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:03
> To: ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] Switches and latency
>
> Let's assume a fully redundant network.
> We need 4 switches, 2 for
086107
Am 14.06.2016 um 07:47 schrieb Nick Fisk:
> osd_tier_promote_max_objects_sec
> and
> osd_tier_promote_max_bytes_sec
>
> is what you are looking for, I think by default its set to 5MB/s, which
> would roughly correlate to why you are only seeing around 8 objects each
Did you enable the sortbitwise flag as per the upgrade instructions, as there
is a known bug with it? I don't know why these instructions haven't been
amended in light of this bug.
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16113
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@
osd_tier_promote_max_objects_sec
and
osd_tier_promote_max_bytes_sec
is what you are looking for, I think by default its set to 5MB/s, which
would roughly correlate to why you are only seeing around 8 objects each
time being promoted. This was done like this as too many promotions hurt
performance,
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Saverio Proto
> Sent: 09 June 2016 11:38
> To: n...@fisk.me.uk
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSPF to the host
>
> > Has anybody had any experience with running th
> -Original Message-
> From: Luis Periquito [mailto:periqu...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 June 2016 14:30
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSPF to the host
>
> Nick,
>
> TL;DR: works brilliantly :)
Excellent, just what I wanted to
Hi All,
Has anybody had any experience with running the network routed down all the
way to the host?
I know the standard way most people configured their OSD nodes is to bond
the two nics which will then talk via a VRRP gateway and then probably from
then on the networking is all Layer3. T
Yes, this is fine. I currently use 2 bonded 10G nics which have the untagged
vlan as the public network and a tagged vlan as the cluster network.
However, when I build my next cluster I will probably forgo the separate
cluster network and just run them over the same IP, as after running the
clu
Just a couple of points.
1. I know you said 10G was not an option, but I would really push for it.
You can pick up Dell 10G-T switches (N4032) for not a lot more than a 48
port 1G switch. They make a lot more difference than just 10x the bandwidth.
With Ceph latency is critical. As its 10G-T, you
rift:
>
> IP Interactive UG ( haftungsbeschraenkt ) Zum Sonnenberg 1-3
> 63571 Gelnhausen
>
> HRB 93402 beim Amtsgericht Hanau
> Geschäftsführung: Oliver Dzombic
>
> Steuer Nr.: 35 236 3622 1
> UST ID: DE274086107
>
>
> Am 31.05.2016 um 13:05 schrieb Nick
involved, so make ur own picture :-)
>
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards
>
> Oliver Dzombic
> IP-Interactive
>
> mailto:i...@ip-interactive.de
>
> Anschrift:
>
> IP Interactive UG ( haftungsbeschraenkt ) Zum Sonnenberg 1-3
> 63571 G
involved, so make ur own picture :-)
>
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards
>
> Oliver Dzombic
> IP-Interactive
>
> mailto:i...@ip-interactive.de
>
> Anschrift:
>
> IP Interactive UG ( haftungsbeschraenkt ) Zum Sonnenberg 1-3
> 63571 G
Steuer Nr.: 35 236 3622 1
> UST ID: DE274086107
>
>
> Am 30.05.2016 um 17:13 schrieb Christian Balzer:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 09:40:11 +0100 Nick Fisk wrote:
> >
> >> The other option is to scale out rather than scale up. I&
The other option is to scale out rather than scale up. I'm currently building
nodes based on a fast Xeon E3 with 12 Drives in 1U. The MB/CPU is very
attractively priced and the higher clock gives you much lower write latency if
that is important. The density is slightly lower, but I guess you ga
See here:
http://cephnotes.ksperis.com/blog/2014/07/04/remove-big-rbd-image
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Saul
> Sent: 23 May 2016 09:37
> To: 'ceph-users@lists.ceph.com'
> Subject: [ceph-users] RBD removal issue
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Heath Albritton
> Sent: 23 May 2016 01:24
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] NVRAM cards as OSD journals
>
> I'm contemplating the same thing as well. Or rather, I'
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kerdisle [mailto:peter.kerdi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 May 2016 12:14
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kerdisle [mailto:peter.kerdi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 May 2016 11:04
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at
ncy for reads to be higher than the max
hit_set count. Then in theory no reads will ever cause an object to be promoted.
Nick
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM Nick Fisk wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Kerdisle [mailto:peter.kerdi...@gmail.co
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kerdisle [mailto:peter.kerdi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 May 2016 08:04
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
>
> Hey Nick,
>
> I&#
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Eastman [mailto:eric.east...@keepertech.com]
> Sent: 11 May 2016 16:02
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout on
> lockfile
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 a
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Haomai Wang
> Sent: 13 May 2016 15:00
> To: Florent B
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Multiple backend pools on the same cacher tier
> pool ?
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:11 PM
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Nelson [mailto:mnel...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 11 May 2016 13:16
> To: Somnath Roy ; Nick Fisk
> ; Ben England ; Kyle Bader
>
> Cc: Sage Weil ; Samuel Just ; ceph-
> us...@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: Weighted Priority Queue testi
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Eastman [mailto:eric.east...@keepertech.com]
> Sent: 10 May 2016 18:29
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout on
> lockfile
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 a
Hi Peter, yes just restart the OSD for the setting to take effect.
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Kerdisle
Sent: 10 May 2016 19:06
To: Nick Fisk
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Peter Kerdisle
> Sent: 10 May 2016 14:37
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
>
> To answer my own question it seems that you can
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Nick Fisk
> Sent: 10 May 2016 13:30
> To: 'Eric Eastman'
> Cc: 'Ceph Users'
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout o
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Eastman [mailto:eric.east...@keepertech.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2016 23:09
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout on
> lockfile
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Ni
Hi Eric,
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Eastman [mailto:eric.east...@keepertech.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2016 19:21
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout on
> lockfile
>
> I am trying to do some
> -Original Message-
> From: Ira Cooper [mailto:icoo...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2016 17:31
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: Nick Fisk ; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] CephFS + CTDB/Samba - MDS session timeout on
> lockfile
> - Original Message
Hi All,
I've been testing an active/active Samba cluster over CephFS, performance
seems really good with small files compared to Gluster. Soft reboots work
beautifully with little to no interruption in file access. However when I
perform a hard shutdown/reboot of one of the samba nodes, the remain
. No real way to do this yet.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/2016 08:40 AM, Peter Kerdisle wrote:
> > Thank you, I will attempt to play around with these settings and see
> > if I can achieve better read performance.
> >
> > Appreciate your insights.
> &g
r taking the time to answer my questions. Some in-line comments.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Nick Fisk wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Peter Kerd
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Peter Kerdisle
> Sent: 02 May 2016 08:17
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] Erasure pool performance expectations
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I am currently testing the
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Udo Lembke
> Sent: 20 April 2016 07:21
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Slow read on RBD mount, Hammer 0.94.5
>
> Hi Mike,
> I don't have experiences with RBD moun
I would advise you to take a look at the osd_agent_max_ops (and
osd_agent_max_ops), these should in theory dictate how many parallel threads
will be used for flushing. Do a conf dump from the admin socket to see what you
are currently running with and then bump them up to see if it helps.
> ---
Jan,
I would like to echo Sage's response here. It seems you only want a subset
of what Ceph offers, whereas RADOS is designed to offer a whole lot more,
which requires a lot more intelligence at the lower levels.
I must say I have found your attitude to both Sage and the Ceph project as a
whole
ar.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:34 AM, David Riedl
> wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I use this for my zabbix environment:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/thelan/ceph-zabbix/
> > >
> > > It wor
> Hi.
> I have small question about monitoring performance at ceph cluster.
>
> We have cluster with 5 nodes and 8 drives on each node, and 5 monitor on
> every node. For monitoring cluster we use zabbix. It asked every node for
30
> second about current ceph operation and get different result f
Hi Christian,
> Hello,
>
> Ceph 0.94.5 for the record.
>
> As some may remember, I phased in a 2TB cache tier 5 weeks ago.
>
> About now it has reached about 60% usage, which is what I have the
> cache_target_dirty_ratio set to.
>
> And for the last 3 days I could see some writes (op_in_byte
Hi All,
I can see the path in the upstart script
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/upstart/ceph-osd.conf
Checks for the file /etc/default/ceph and then runs it
But in all the instances of ceph that I have installed that location is a
directory and the actual location of t
> >>
> >> On 03/29/2016 04:35 PM, Nick Fisk wrote:
> >>> One thing I picked up on when looking at dm-cache for doing caching
> >>> with RBD's is that it wasn't really designed to be used as a
> >>> writeback cache for new writes, a
>
> > > > I think this is where I see slow performance. If you are doing
> > > > large IO, then copying 4MB objects (assuming defaults) is maybe
> > > > only 2x times the original IO to the disk. However if you are
> > > > doing smaller IO from what I can see a single 4kb write would lead
> > > >
> > I think this is where I see slow performance. If you are doing large
> > IO, then copying 4MB objects (assuming defaults) is maybe only 2x
> > times the original IO to the disk. However if you are doing smaller IO
> > from what I can see a single 4kb write would lead to a 4MB object
> > being
> Been a while, but...
Brilliant, just what I needed to know. Thanks for the confirmation/answers.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Nick Fisk wrote:
> > I'm just trying to understand the steps each IO goes through and have
> > been looking at the output dump his
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Gregory Farnum
> Sent: 29 March 2016 18:52
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Ceph Users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Redirect snapshot COW to alternative pool
>
> On Sat, Ma
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Ric Wheeler
> Sent: 29 March 2016 14:40
> To: Nick Fisk ; 'Sage Weil'
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com; device-mapper development de...@redhat.com>
> Subject
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Ric Wheeler
> Sent: 29 March 2016 14:07
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Local SSD cache for ceph on each compute node.
>
> On 03/29/2016 03:42 PM,
Evening All,
I've been testing the RBD snapshot functionality and one thing that I have
seen is that once you take a snapshot of a RBD and perform small random IO
on the original RBD, performance is really bad due to the amount of write
amplification going on doing the COW's. ie every IO to the
There is got to be something else going on here. All that PR does is to
potentially delay the promotion to hit_set_period*recency instead of just doing
it on the 2nd read regardless, it's got to be uncovering another bug.
Do you see the same problem if the cache is in writeback mode before you s
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Niasoff
> Sent: 16 March 2016 21:02
> To: Nick Fisk ; 'Van Leeuwen, Robert'
> ; 'Jason Dillaman'
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subjec
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Irek Fasikhov
> Sent: 17 March 2016 13:00
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: Robert LeBlanc ; ceph-users us...@lists.ceph.com>; Nick Fisk ; William Perkins
>
> Subject: Re: [
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrien Gillard
> Sent: 17 March 2016 10:23
> To: ceph-users
> Subject: [ceph-users] RBD hanging on some volumes of a pool
>
> Hi,
>
> I am facing issues with some of my rbd volumes since yes
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Harker
> Sent: 16 March 2016 16:22
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] SSDs for journals vs SSDs for a cache tier,
which is
> better?
>
> On 2016-02-17 11:07, C
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 16 March 2016 07:08
> To: Robert LeBlanc
> Cc: Robert LeBlanc ; ceph-users us...@lists.ceph.com>; William Perkins
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] data corruption with
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Niasoff
> Sent: 16 March 2016 08:26
> To: Van Leeuwen, Robert ; Jason Dillaman
>
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Local SSD cache for ceph on each compute n
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Yoann Moulin
> Sent: 10 March 2016 08:38
> To: Nick Fisk ; ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] how to choose EC plugins and rulesets
>
> Le 10/03/2016
What is your intended use case RBD/FS/RGW? There are no major improvements
in Jewel that I am aware of. The big one will be when EC pools allow direct
partial overwrites without the use of a cache tier.
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On B
Hi Christian,
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 07 March 2016 02:22
> To: ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Cache tier operation clarifications
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to get some insights,
You can also dump the historic ops from the OSD admin socket. It will give a
brief overview of each step and how long each one is taking.
But generally what you are seeing is not unusual. Currently best case for a RBD
on a replicated pool will be somewhere between 200-500 iops. The Ceph code is
Interesting... see below
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 01 March 2016 08:20
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Cc: Nick Fisk
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Cache tier weirdness
Thanks Jan, that is an excellent explanation.
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Jan
Schermer
Sent: 26 February 2016 10:07
To: Huan Zhang
Cc: josh durgin ; Nick Fisk ;
ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
O_DIRECT is
s-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 26 February 2016 09:30
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: josh durgin ; ceph-users us...@ceph.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
>
> Hi Nick,
> DB's IO pattern depends on config, mysql for example.
>
Hi Christian,
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 26 February 2016 09:07
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] Cache tier weirdness
>
>
> Hello,
>
> still my test cluster with 0.94.6
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 26 February 2016 06:50
> To: Jason Dillaman
> Cc: josh durgin ; Nick Fisk ;
> ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so po
I'm just trying to understand the steps each IO goes through and have been
looking at the output dump historic ops command from the admin socket.
There's a couple of steps I'm not quite sure what they mean and also
slightly puzzled by the delay and was wondering if anybody could share some
knowledg
There’s two factors really
1. Suitability for use in ceph
2. Number of people using them
For #1, there are a number of people using various different drives, so lots of
options. The blog articled linked is a good place to start.
For #2 and I think this is quite important.
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Jason Dillaman
> Sent: 25 February 2016 01:30
> To: Christian Balzer
> Cc: ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] ceph hammer : rbd info/Status : operation not
> supported (95) (EC+
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Huan Zhang
> Sent: 25 February 2016 11:11
> To: josh.dur...@inktank.com
> Cc: ceph-users
> Subject: [ceph-users] Guest sync write iops so poor.
>
> Hi,
>We test sync iops with fio sync=
> -Original Message-
> From: M Ranga Swami Reddy [mailto:swamire...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 February 2016 13:44
> To: Nick Fisk
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] OSD Journal size config
>
> > Hello All,
> > I have increased my cluster's OSD journal size from
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> M Ranga Swami Reddy
> Sent: 18 February 2016 12:09
> To: ceph-users
> Subject: [ceph-users] OSD Journal size config
>
> Hello All,
> I have increased my cluster's OSD journal size from 2GB
Hi All,
Could someone please sanity check this for me please. I trying to get my
head round what counter reflect what and how they correlate to end user
performance.
In the attached graph I am graphing averages of the counters across all
OSD's on one host
Blue = osd.w_op_latency
Red = Max of abo
Ah typo, I meant to say 10Mhz per IO. So a 7.2k disk does around 80IOPs = ~
800mhz which is close to the 1Ghz figure.
From: John Hogenmiller [mailto:j...@hogenmiller.net]
Sent: 17 February 2016 13:15
To: Nick Fisk
Cc: Василий Ангапов ; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users
ent HDD usage (replication vs. EC).
>
> Plus: A lot less expensive SSDs, less CPU and RAM requirements, smaller
> impact in case of node failure/maintenance.
>
> No ideas about the stuff below.
>
> Christian
> > Also, am I right that for 6+3 EC profile i need at least 1
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 17 February 2016 04:22
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Cc: Piotr Wachowicz
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] SSDs for journals vs SSDs for a cache tier,
which is
> better?
Thanks for posting your experiences John, very interesting read. I think the
golden rule of around 1Ghz is still a realistic goal to aim for. It looks like
you probably have around 16ghz for 60OSD's, or 0.26Ghz per OSD. Do you have any
idea on how much CPU you think you would need to just be abl
> -Original Message-
> From: Василий Ангапов [mailto:anga...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 February 2016 13:15
> To: Tyler Bishop
> Cc: Nick Fisk ; us...@lists.ceph.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Recomendations for building 1PB RadosGW with
> Erasure Code
>
&
get a fairly good idea about the hardware requirements from this.
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Nick Fisk
> Sent: 16 February 2016 08:12
> To: 'Tyler Bishop' ; 'Василий Ангапов'
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Tyler Bishop
> Sent: 16 February 2016 04:20
> To: Василий Ангапов
> Cc: ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Recomendations for building 1PB RadosGW with
> Erasure Code
>
> You should lo
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk]
> Sent: 12 February 2016 13:31
> To: 'Sage Weil'
> Cc: 'Jason Dillaman' ; 'Samuel Just'
> ; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com; ceph-
> de...@vger.kernel.org
> Subje
f you received this message erroneously, please notify the sender and
> delete it, together with any attachments.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Nick Fisk
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 9:07 AM
&
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Balzer
> Sent: 12 February 2016 15:38
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Reducing the impact of OSD restarts (noout ain't
> uptosnuff)
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2
> -Original Message-
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil
> Sent: 12 February 2016 13:15
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: 'Jason Dillaman' ; 'Samuel Just'
> ; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
I will do my best to answer, but some of the questions are starting to stretch
the limit of my knowledge
> -Original Message-
> From: Huan Zhang [mailto:huan.zhang...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 12 February 2016 12:15
> To: Nick Fisk
> Cc: Irek Fasikhov ; ceph-users us...@ceph
301 - 400 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
