[up2isomorphism]

You are talking different thing. I don’t care what “purpose “ you want to achieve. I merely point out this performance number is mediocre at best, because the enormous computing power thrown at it , wether you like it or not.

To put it into perspective there are 68 nodes with 98 hard thread each, means only 1000/7000 = 140MB/s per thread or 280MB/s per core, and that’s not that impressive, to be honest.

[markhpc]

Hi, Author here.

Large reads tend to require the least CPU of all of the tests that we ran in the post. This is especially true in a 3X replication scenario where reads are serviced by a single OSD like in the 1 TiB/s test. CPU is far more important for small random writes, and also can be important when using erasure coding and/or msgr level encryption.

So the premise that you can only achieve 280MB/s per core is misleading. This cluster wasn't bottlenecked by the CPUs for large reads. Having said that, CPU makes up only a small portion of the overall cost for an NVMe deployment like this. Investing a relatively small amount of money to achieve a higher core to nvme ratio provides a better balance across all workloads and more flexibility when enabling features that consume additional CPU.

[mrunkel]

> This is an insanely expensive cluster built to show a benchmark. 68 node cluster serving only 15TB storage in total.

This reads to me (and the OP) that you are saying the purpose of this "insanely expensive cluster" was to "show a benchmark."

That's what OP is addressing in his response. No where do you mention anything about performance.

[up2isomorphism]

1TB/second is a benchmark number, and obviously it is trying to impress. This is already a purpose without further clarification, on the other hand it does not necessarily mean it can not have other purpose - which again looks an extremely expensive cluster for that purpose. And I do not see the reason to down vote except some one got hurt in the feeling with a fact. With the actually configuration shown, it is just not that performant nor economical, as I said in the reply, if you had read anything about it.