Hi, On 07/08/2015 11:45, Derek Su wrote: > Hi, Loic, > > I also suspect the bottleneck is not the CPU. > I stored the journal and the data on the same HDD, so the write > performance is very poor. Is it the possible limiting factor in my > system? > > Now I am trying to save the journal to SSD insted of the HDD. > I will report the results later if I got better results. > > By the way, is there any commands or methods to know whether the CPU > is really accelerated? Or I can only know that from the results of > benchmark? > I am worry about that the ISA erasure profile is not read by the Ceph...
You can easily verify the ISA profile is being used by running the benchmark described at http://dachary.org/?p=3665. Cheers > > Thanks, > Derek > > > 2015-08-07 17:25 GMT+08:00 Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org>: >> Hi, >> >> On 07/08/2015 03:26, Derek Su wrote: >>> Hello, Loic >>> the following is my steps and configurations: >>> (1) The 11 osd and 3 monitors were ran in the docker container on the >>> same host machine. >>> (2) Each osd had one 1T HDD. >>> >>> (3) I set the erasure coding pool profiles: >>> ## Jerasure, reed-soloman >>> $ ceph osd erasure-code-profile set reed_k4m2_A k=4 m=2 >>> directory=/usr/lib64/ceph/erasure-code >>> >>> ## ISA, reed-soloman >>> ceph osd erasure-code-profile set reed_k4m2_isa_A k=4 m=2 >>> directory=/usr/lib64/ceph/erasure-code plugin=isa >>> technique=reed_sol_van >>> >>> (4) Then, the erasure pools were created: >>> ## Jerasure, reed-soloman >>> $ $ceph osd pool create reed_k4m2_A_pool 128 128 erasure reed_k4m2_A >>> >>> ## ISA, reed-soloman >>> $ ceph osd pool create reed_k4m2_isa_A_pool 128 128 erasure reed_k4m2_isa_A >>> >>> (5) Then, I used the rados benchmark to test the write performance >>> ## Jerasure, reed-soloman >>> rados bench -p reed_k4m2_A_pool 500 write --no-cleanup >>> >>> ## ISA, reed-soloman >>> rados bench -p reed_k4m2_isa_A_pool write --no-cleanup >>> >>> ---- >>> The results: >>> (1) Jerasure/Reed-Soloman >>> Write throughput: 136.0 MB/S, Latency: 0.471 >>> (2) ISA/Reed-Soloman >>> Write throughput: 133.1 MB/S, Latency: 0.481 >>> (3) Jerasure/cauchy_good >>> Write throughput: 138.3 MB/S, Latency: 0.462 >>> (4) ISA/cauchy >>> Write throughput: 140.2 MB/S, Latency: 0.452 >>> >>> -- >>> My CPU information: >>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v3 @ 3.40GHz >>> >>> $ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep flags >>> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge >>> mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe >>> syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts >>> rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq >>> dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid >>> sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx >>> f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi >>> flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms >>> invpcid xsaveopt >>> >>> Ram: 12 GiB >>> >>> >>> The results of the performance tests seem there are no differences... >>> >> >> I have not conducted such tests myself. I would however expect to see some >> difference because the ISA plugin goes faster than the Jerasure plugin for >> writes. Could it be that in the test you run the CPU is not the limiting >> factor ? >> >> Cheers >> >> >>> Thanks, :) >>> Derek >>> >>> 2015-08-06 20:31 GMT+08:00 Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org>: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Could you please publish the benchmark results somewhere ? I should be >>>> able to figure out why you don't see a difference. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> On 06/08/2015 13:25, Derek Su wrote: >>>>> Dear Mr. Dachary and all, >>>>> >>>>> Recently, I found your blog show the performance tests of erasure >>>>> pools (http://dachary.org/?p=3042 , http://dachary.org/?p=3665). >>>>> The results indicates the write throughput can be enhanced >>>>> significantly using Intel xeon CPU. >>>>> >>>>> I tried to create an erasure pool with isa plugin, reed_sol_van >>>>> technique, and k/m=4/2 on the Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 v3 @ >>>>> 3.40GHz machines. >>>>> >>>>> However, the results of the rados benchmark showed that there was no >>>>> any difference between the jerasure and isa plugins. It seems very >>>>> strange. >>>>> >>>>> Do I need to do other configurations in addition to only setting the >>>>> erasure profile? >>>>> In addition, how can I know the erasure pool is accelerated by ISA >>>>> plugin exactly? Is there any command I can use? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, :) >>>>> >>>>> Derek Su. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
