On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >> with rbd_cache=true , I got around 60000iops (and I don't see any network 
> >> traffic) 
> >>
> >>So maybe they are a bug in fio ? 
> >>maybe this is related to: 
> 
> Oh, sorry, this was my fault, I didn't fill the rbd with datas before doing 
> the bench
> 
> Now the results are (for 1 osd)
> 
> firefly
> ------
>  bw=37460KB/s, iops=9364
> 
> giant
> -----
>  bw=32741KB/s, iops=8185
> 
> 
> So, a little regression
> 
> (the results are equals rbd_cache=true|false)

Do you see a difference with rados bench, or is it just librbd?

Thanks!
sage


> 
> 
> I'll try to compare with more osds
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> 
> De: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <[email protected]> 
> ?: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]> 
> Cc: "Sage Weil" <[email protected]>, "Josh Durgin" <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected], "Haomai Wang" <[email protected]> 
> Envoy?: Vendredi 19 Septembre 2014 12:09:41 
> Objet: Re: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> 
> >>What tool are you using ? I used fio rbd. 
> 
> fio rbd too 
> 
> 
> [global] 
> ioengine=rbd 
> clientname=admin 
> pool=test 
> rbdname=test 
> invalidate=0 
> #rw=read 
> #rw=randwrite 
> #rw=write 
> rw=randread 
> bs=4k 
> direct=1 
> numjobs=2 
> group_reporting=1 
> size=10G 
> 
> [rbd_iodepth32] 
> iodepth=32 
> 
> 
> 
> I just notice something strange 
> 
> with rbd_cache=true , I got around 60000iops (and I don't see any network 
> traffic) 
> 
> So maybe they are a bug in fio ? 
> maybe this is related to: 
> 
> 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9391 
> "fio rbd driver rewrites same blocks" 
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> 
> De: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]> 
> ?: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <[email protected]>, "Haomai Wang" 
> <[email protected]> 
> Cc: "Sage Weil" <[email protected]>, "Josh Durgin" <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] 
> Envoy?: Jeudi 18 Septembre 2014 20:02:49 
> Objet: RE: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> 
> Alexandre, 
> What tool are you using ? I used fio rbd. 
> 
> Also, I hope you have Giant package installed in the client side as well and 
> rbd_cache =true is set on the client conf file. 
> FYI, firefly librbd + librados and Giant cluster will work seamlessly and I 
> had to make sure fio rbd is really loading giant librbd (if you have multiple 
> copies around , which was in my case) for reproducing it. 
> 
> Thanks & Regards 
> Somnath 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Alexandre DERUMIER [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:49 AM 
> To: Haomai Wang 
> Cc: Sage Weil; Josh Durgin; [email protected]; Somnath Roy 
> Subject: Re: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> 
> >>According http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9513, do you mean that rbd 
> >>cache will make 10x performance degradation for random read? 
> 
> Hi, on my side, I don't see any degradation performance on read (seq or rand) 
> with or without. 
> 
> firefly : around 12000iops (with or without rbd_cache) giant : around 
> 12000iops (with or without rbd_cache) 
> 
> (and I can reach around 20000-30000 iops on giant with disabling optracker). 
> 
> 
> rbd_cache only improve write performance for me (4k block ) 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> 
> De: "Haomai Wang" <[email protected]> 
> ?: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]> 
> Cc: "Sage Weil" <[email protected]>, "Josh Durgin" <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected] 
> Envoy?: Jeudi 18 Septembre 2014 04:27:56 
> Objet: Re: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> 
> According http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9513, do you mean that rbd cache 
> will make 10x performance degradation for random read? 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Somnath Roy <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > Josh/Sage, 
> > I should mention that even after turning off rbd cache I am getting ~20% 
> > degradation over Firefly. 
> > 
> > Thanks & Regards 
> > Somnath 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Somnath Roy 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:44 PM 
> > To: Sage Weil 
> > Cc: Josh Durgin; [email protected] 
> > Subject: RE: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> > 
> > Created a tracker for this. 
> > 
> > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9513 
> > 
> > Thanks & Regards 
> > Somnath 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:39 PM 
> > To: Sage Weil 
> > Cc: Josh Durgin; [email protected] 
> > Subject: RE: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> > 
> > Sage, 
> > It's a 4K random read. 
> > 
> > Thanks & Regards 
> > Somnath 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Sage Weil [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:36 PM 
> > To: Somnath Roy 
> > Cc: Josh Durgin; [email protected] 
> > Subject: RE: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> > 
> > What was the io pattern? Sequential or random? For random a slowdown makes 
> > sense (tho maybe not 10x!) but not for sequentail.... 
> > 
> > s 
> > 
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Somnath Roy wrote: 
> > 
> >> I set the following in the client side /etc/ceph/ceph.conf where I am 
> >> running fio rbd. 
> >> 
> >> rbd_cache_writethrough_until_flush = false 
> >> 
> >> But, no difference. BTW, I am doing Random read, not write. Still this 
> >> setting applies ? 
> >> 
> >> Next, I tried to tweak the rbd_cache setting to false and I *got back* the 
> >> old performance. Now, it is similar to firefly throughput ! 
> >> 
> >> So, loks like rbd_cache=true was the culprit. 
> >> 
> >> Thanks Josh ! 
> >> 
> >> Regards 
> >> Somnath 
> >> 
> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> From: Josh Durgin [mailto:[email protected]] 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:20 PM 
> >> To: Somnath Roy; [email protected] 
> >> Subject: Re: severe librbd performance degradation in Giant 
> >> 
> >> On 09/17/2014 01:55 PM, Somnath Roy wrote: 
> >> > Hi Sage, 
> >> > We are experiencing severe librbd performance degradation in Giant over 
> >> > firefly release. Here is the experiment we did to isolate it as a librbd 
> >> > problem. 
> >> > 
> >> > 1. Single OSD is running latest Giant and client is running fio rbd on 
> >> > top of firefly based librbd/librados. For one client it is giving 
> >> > ~11-12K iops (4K RR). 
> >> > 2. Single OSD is running Giant and client is running fio rbd on top of 
> >> > Giant based librbd/librados. For one client it is giving ~1.9K iops (4K 
> >> > RR). 
> >> > 3. Single OSD is running latest Giant and client is running Giant based 
> >> > ceph_smaiobench on top of giant librados. For one client it is giving 
> >> > ~11-12K iops (4K RR). 
> >> > 4. Giant RGW on top of Giant OSD is also scaling. 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > So, it is obvious from the above that recent librbd has issues. I will 
> >> > raise a tracker to track this. 
> >> 
> >> For giant the default cache settings changed to: 
> >> 
> >> rbd cache = true 
> >> rbd cache writethrough until flush = true 
> >> 
> >> If fio isn't sending flushes as the test is running, the cache will stay 
> >> in writethrough mode. Does the difference remain if you set rbd cache 
> >> writethrough until flush = false ? 
> >> 
> >> Josh 
> >> 
> >> ________________________________ 
> >> 
> >> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is 
> >> intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If 
> >> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
> >> notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, 
> >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
> >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
> >> notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and 
> >> destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether 
> >> hard copies or electronically stored copies). 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" 
> >> in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo 
> >> info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> >> 
> >> 
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" 
> > in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo 
> > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" 
> > in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo 
> > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> Wheat 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the 
> body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at 
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in 
> the body of a message to [email protected] 
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to