Open Stack

It heavily depends on your swift and network setup. We see better
throughout without compression, by about 20% if I remember correctly.
On 6 Apr 2015 04:17, "Jae Sang Lee" <hyangii at gmail.com> wrote:

> Send without compression is more slower because it send a large data.
> In my environment, send 10GB disk to swift except compression spent 6min
> 40sec but with compression 4min 13sec.
>
>
> 2015-04-02 23:16 GMT+09:00 Murali Balcha <Murali.Balcha at triliodata.com>:
>
>>  Just curious. What is the overhead of compression and other backup
>> processes?  How much time does it take to upload a simple 50GB file to
>> swift compare to backup of 50 GB to swift?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.thomas at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 6:13 AM
>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Issue for backup speed
>>
>>
>>
>> This is something we're working on (I work with the author of the patch
>> you referenced) but the refactoring of the backup code in this cycle has
>> made progress challenging. If you have a patch that works, please submit
>> it, even if it needs some cleaning up, we'd be happy to work with you on
>> and testing, cleaning up and improvements.
>>
>>
>>
>> The basic problem is that backup is CPU bound (compression, ssl) so the
>> existing parallelisation techniques used in cinder don't help. Running many
>> cinder-backup processes can give you good aggregate throughput if you're
>> running many backups at once, but this appears not to be a common case,
>> even in a large public cloud.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 April 2015 at 11:41, Jae Sang Lee <hyangii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I tested Swift backup driver in Cinder-backup and that performance isn't
>> high.
>>
>> In our test environment, The average time for backup 50G volume is 20min.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I found a patch for this that add multi thread for swift backup driver(
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111314) but It's also too slow. It
>> looks like that patch doesn't implement thread properly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any improvement way about this? I'd appreciate other's thoughts
>> on these issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Duncan Thomas
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150406/7d49b38d/attachment.html>