Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
83 lines (68 loc) · 3.26 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

83 lines (68 loc) · 3.26 KB
Raw

Title

s3fuse performance test

Purpose

  • How many objects can LeoFS store in a directory with reasonable list_bucket latency in practice?
  • Does the number of total objects stored in LeoFS affect the performance of list_bucket?
  • Does the number of concurrent requests to LeoFS affect the performance of list_bucket?
  • Does the number of mount points to LeoFS affect the performance of list_bucket?

How to test

Measure the time of ls command against a directory storing a specific amount of files with the time command.

  • Conditions

    • the number of mount points(hereafter called M)
    • the number of concurrent requests per a mount point(hereafter called C)
    • the number of total objects stored in LeoFS(hereafter called T)
    • the number of objects in the target(ls) directory(hereafter called O)

  • LeoFS cluster information

Results

  • M=1, C=1

| T | O | latency(avg.) | | -------- | --------- | ------ | -------- | | 100,000 | 1000 | real 0m3.657s, user 0m0.021s, sys 0m0.113s | | 500,000 | 1000 | real 0m4.645s, user 0m0.015s, sys 0m0.083s | | 1,000,000 | 1000 | real 0m4.567s, user 0m0.033s, sys 0m0.081s | | 100,000 | 5000 | real 0m24.053s, user 0m0.043s, sys 0m0.252s | | 500,000 | 5000 | real 0m24.976s, user 0m0.064s, sys 0m0.199s | | 1,000,000 | 5000 | real 0m21.571s, user 0m0.054s, sys 0m0.272s | | 100,000 | 10000 | real 1m1.716s, user 0m0.102s, sys 0m0.477s | | 500,000 | 10000 | real 1m1.440s, user 0m0.109s, sys 0m0.369s | | 1,000,000 | 10000 | real 1m3.282s, user 0m0.086s, sys 0m0.412s |

  • M=1, C=2

| T | O | latency(avg.) | | -------- | --------- | ------ | -------- | | 1,000,000 | 1000 | real 0m7.001s, user 0m0.012s, sys 0m0.050s | | 1,000,000 | 5000 | real 0m35.630s, user 0m0.057s, sys 0m0.261s | | 1,000,000 | 10000 | real 1m43.352s, user 0m0.115s, sys 0m0.429s |

  • M=1, C=3

| T | O | latency(avg.) | | -------- | --------- | ------ | -------- | | 1,000,000 | 1000 | real 0m8.712s, user 0m0.009s, sys 0m0.040s | | 1,000,000 | 5000 | real 0m50.149s, user 0m0.059s, sys 0m0.221s | | 1,000,000 | 10000 | real 2m25.574s, user 0m0.105s, sys 0m0.407s |

  • M=2, C=1

| T | O | latency(avg.) | | -------- | --------- | ------ | -------- | | 1,000,000 | 1000 | real 0m4.781s, user 0m0.012s, sys 0m0.055s | | 1,000,000 | 5000 | real 0m26.575s, user 0m0.065s, sys 0m0.305s | | 1,000,000 | 10000 | real 1m21.628s, user 0m0.140s, sys 0m0.528s |

  • M=3, C=1

| T | O | latency(avg.) | | -------- | --------- | ------ | -------- | | 1,000,000 | 1000 | real 0m4.411s, user 0m0.015s, sys 0m0.043s | | 1,000,000 | 5000 | real 0m27.183s, user 0m0.068s, sys 0m0.248s | | 1,000,000 | 10000 | real 1m26.885s, user 0m0.139s, sys 0m0.467s |

Conclution

  • s3fuse achieved the impressive result compared to s3fs-fuse. This means s3fuse will be replaced where s3fs-fuse have been used.
  • We recommend limiting O under 1,000 in production for now.
  • T have almost no effect to ls performance.
  • The result of M, C means when accessing to LeoFS via s3fuse in parallel, Increasing M lead to boost performance.