6 ms·
Usually you would benchmark on difficult tasks, not the easiest one. For computers, batch IO operations are much faster than random IO and can easily saturate t
by chrislusf 5y ago
Usually you would benchmark on difficult tasks, not the easiest one.
For computers, batch IO operations are much faster than random IO and can easily saturate the network.
This benchmark uses large batch size, 64MB, to test. There is nothing new here. Most common file systems can easily do the same.
The difficult task is to read and write lots of small files. There is a term for it, LOSF. I work on SeaweedFS, https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs , which is designed to handle LOSF. And of course, no problem with large files at all.
- zurn 5y agoThere are benchmarks for different purpouses, but for users if you're going to run just one benchmark, the best one is the workload you have, or anticipate.
- pradeepchhetri 5y agoThank you for SeaweedFS. Curious if you have benchmarked SeaweedFS against LeoFS (https://github.com/leo-project https://github.com/leo-project) It seems like both have similar motivation.
- chrislusf 5y agoMany systems look similar. Ceph, MooseFS, etc. The difference are in details. Not possible to benchmark everything. And each use case has different access pattern, CPU, memory, network. It's better to benchmark with your own use cases. LeoFS last release is about 3 years ago (v1.4.3 February 20th, 2019), and seems more complicated. SeaweedFS is still growing and has being released on a weekly basis. Just ask if you need any new feature. Also, think about how to manage. For example, grow capacity. For SeaweedFS, you just need to add one server and point it to the master. That is it!
- pradeepchhetri 5y agoGreat. Thank you for the response. Curious if you recommend any particular filesystem for running SeaweedFS.
- chrislusf 5y agoNo preference actually. SeaweedFS is portable, the data file and the metadata.
- pradeepchhetri 5y agoThank you for answering my questions.