Comments on: Sustained IO on EBS == No Bueno http://www.protocolostomy.com/2008/08/27/sustained-io-on-ebs-no-bueno/ Made with only the finest 1's and 0's Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:02:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: coldfire http://www.protocolostomy.com/2008/08/27/sustained-io-on-ebs-no-bueno/comment-page-1/#comment-4102 coldfire Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:53:58 +0000 http://www.protocolostomy.com/?p=355#comment-4102 in my experimentation with a large EC2 instance and a 600GB EBS volume, i have seen the iowait hitting 50% when doing simple operations like extracting a tarball and/or uploading files sustained at 20Mb/s to the EBS volume. i'm getting terribly worried that EBS won't be sufficient to serve a lot of multimedia content from, but we'll see once i have everything in place and have a chance to run some benchmarks. also attempted to create a snapshot of the volume when i had only 300gb of storage. that is running so dreadfully slow that i wish there was a way to just kill it before it completes. seems like it would be quicker to just create another volume, attach it, and copy the data. of course, then you don't have that point in time snapshot ... but oh well. in my experimentation with a large EC2 instance and a 600GB EBS volume, i have seen the iowait hitting 50% when doing simple operations like extracting a tarball and/or uploading files sustained at 20Mb/s to the EBS volume.

i’m getting terribly worried that EBS won’t be sufficient to serve a lot of multimedia content from, but we’ll see once i have everything in place and have a chance to run some benchmarks.

also attempted to create a snapshot of the volume when i had only 300gb of storage. that is running so dreadfully slow that i wish there was a way to just kill it before it completes. seems like it would be quicker to just create another volume, attach it, and copy the data. of course, then you don’t have that point in time snapshot … but oh well.

]]> By: m0j0 http://www.protocolostomy.com/2008/08/27/sustained-io-on-ebs-no-bueno/comment-page-1/#comment-3105 m0j0 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:03 +0000 http://www.protocolostomy.com/?p=355#comment-3105 Thanks, PaulM I just tried to launch a large instance a short while ago, but apparently you *must* have an x86_64 image to launch anything bigger than a 'small' instance, which I don't recall seeing in the docs, which is really annoying. Perhaps I just missed it. I did see that article, but also didn't notice the raw device numbers. I'll have another look - thanks! @Mark -- I didn't plan to run *any* benchmarks, to be honest, but when you know how long something should take, and it takes exponentially longer than that, you get... 'inspired'. brian Thanks, PaulM

I just tried to launch a large instance a short while ago, but apparently you *must* have an x86_64 image to launch anything bigger than a ’small’ instance, which I don’t recall seeing in the docs, which is really annoying. Perhaps I just missed it.

I did see that article, but also didn’t notice the raw device numbers. I’ll have another look – thanks!

@Mark — I didn’t plan to run *any* benchmarks, to be honest, but when you know how long something should take, and it takes exponentially longer than that, you get… ‘inspired’.
brian

]]> By: PaulM http://www.protocolostomy.com/2008/08/27/sustained-io-on-ebs-no-bueno/comment-page-1/#comment-3104 PaulM Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:12:05 +0000 http://www.protocolostomy.com/?p=355#comment-3104 Hey mate, For the raw device numbers go and look at this article http://www.ukd1.co.uk/amazon-ec2-ebs-initial-benchmarks.html I am going to run sysbench myself shortly, Amazon does mention that large and extra large instances with their better network will perform better. Have Fun Paul Hey mate,

For the raw device numbers go and look at this article
http://www.ukd1.co.uk/amazon-ec2-ebs-initial-benchmarks.html

I am going to run sysbench myself shortly, Amazon does mention that large and extra large instances with their better network will perform better.

Have Fun
Paul

]]> By: Mark Callaghan http://www.protocolostomy.com/2008/08/27/sustained-io-on-ebs-no-bueno/comment-page-1/#comment-3093 Mark Callaghan Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:00:51 +0000 http://www.protocolostomy.com/?p=355#comment-3093 Do you plan to run the sysbench fileio test for concurrent 16kb random reads? I am curious about sustained throughput for random IO. My assumption is that there will be a bit of variation as you have shown for sequential IO. Do you plan to run the sysbench fileio test for concurrent 16kb random reads? I am curious about sustained throughput for random IO. My assumption is that there will be a bit of variation as you have shown for sequential IO.

]]>