# Lower performance after migrating from Ceph to OpenEbs

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/lower-performance-after-migrating-from-ceph-to-openebs/360652>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [June 1, 2024, 8:23am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/lower-performance-after-migrating-from-ceph-to-openebs/360652 "2024-06-01T08:23:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sajad\_Soltanian](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/sajad_soltanian/32/122022_2.png) [@Sajad\_Soltanian](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Sajad_Soltanian)\
**Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 8:23am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/lower-performance-after-migrating-from-ceph-to-openebs/360652/1 "2024-06-01T08:23:05Z")

</div>

We have previously gotten **16 warm-data-nodes** (running on Kuber) all having the same resource (32Gb heap, 64Gb Ram, **3 Tb hdd)**.  
Since it is not much recommended to use a distributed storage system for Elasticsearch, we have decided to use local disks instead.

As we were running on kuber and it provided us several advantages, we were looking for a kuber storage to have a neer-local disk performance and we have found the **OpenEbs(Local PV: LVM)** technology to do so.

The new cluster has 10 warm nodes each having the same Ram and CPU as before, with 8 Tb of hdd storage, which we expected to at least provide tha same performace and latency as our previous cluster does.

Despite the fact that reducing the number of nodes may reduce perfomance a bit, though we think that this is not the real problem, and the root cause is the openEbs itself.

We have encountered about **100x higher latency (0.2 ms -\> 20ms)** and **10X higher took tim** e than our previous cluster.

What is the problem? How to solve? Why a neer-local-disk technology causes such a reduction in performance, in contrast to the Ceph, which was not recommended much?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\
**Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 9:05am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/lower-performance-after-migrating-from-ceph-to-openebs/360652/2 "2024-06-01T09:05:02Z")

</div>

> [@Sajad\_Soltanian](#):
>
> What is the problem? How to solve? Why a neer-local-disk technology causes such a reduction in performance, in contrast to the Ceph, which was not recommended much?

Sounds like a question for the OpenEBS community as it is about storage performance comparison rather than Elasticsearch.