Replies: 4 comments 1 reply
-
@myskov When HA is turned on, the data is replicated across leaders and followers, and this entails additional round trips on the network, which adds to latency per request and, consequently, a drop in performance. This is a laws of physics limitation.. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@myskov , It is great that you have benchmarked the performance difference between HA and non-HA! As @kerneltime mentioned, it is expected to have a performance drop. The benchmark is very useful for maintaining the performance and seeking new improvements. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@szetszwo @kerneltime |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I updated the original post with one more case - writing small files into many buckets (the performance is the same as with single bucket). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi devs,
Our team is investigating Ozone performance improvements, and we've identified OM HA as a potential bottleneck.
Here are the results from our performance testing:
Writing small files per second with OM HA (~3000 files per second, single bucket):
Writing small files per second with OM HA (~3000 files per second, multiple buckets):
Writing small files per second without OM HA (~6000 files per second, single bucket):
Questions:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions