On 2015/2/6 16:41, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> At Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:24:21 +0900,
> Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>>
>> At Tue, 3 Feb 2015 17:17:42 +0800,
>> hujianyang wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Saeki,
>>>
>>> On 2015/2/3 16:53, Saeki Masaki wrote:
>>>> Hi Hu,
>>>>
>>>> Since Sheepdog has a mechanism that does not place objects in the same
>>>> zone_id.
>>>> Can you try to change ZONE id in each node.
>>>>>>> Id Host:Port V-Nodes Zone
>>>>>>> 0 130.1.0.147:7000 128 0
>>>>>>> 1 130.1.0.148:7000 128 0
>>>>>>> 2 130.1.0.149:7000 128 0
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards, Saeki.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good suggestions~!
>>>
>>> Seems OK now. But write performance is too slow in my environment.
>>
>> 1.1MB/s seems to be too slow, how about changing input file from
>> /dev/random to /dev/zero? And I'd like to know perofrmance of default
>> backing store of tgt (use file as iSCSI target) on your environment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hitoshi
>
> BTW, I have pending patchset for parallelizing iSCSI PDU send/recv of
> tgtd:
> https://github.com/mitake/tgt/commits/iscsi-pdu-rxtx-mt
>
> You can activate the feature with new option -T:
> $ tgtd -T 16
>
> It is still half-baked, but in some cases it can improve performance
> of iSCSI + sheepdog.
>
> Thanks,
> Hitoshi
>
Hi Hitoshi,
Sorry for reply late. You know, there always many stuffs need to
been done before Spring Festival.
Actually my current environment is just for testing the features
of sheepdog. Performance is not a urgent issue. Thanks for your
kindness.
I have tested sheepdog with fio on my testing environment:
[global]
runtime=300
direct=1
iodepth=1
bs=256K
size=100G
numjobs=1
time_based
KB/s read randread write randwrite
local 179957 36262 179933 66752
iSCSI redundancy(3x) 51553 51303 17826 15984
redundancy(4:2) 43166 42775 20370 14234
SBD redundancy(3x) 51112 51106 17515 20311
I'm not quite sure why randwrite is better than randread via local
access.
Thanks,
Hu
--
sheepdog mailing list
sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org
https://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
