On 10/20/2014 09:28 AM, Mark Wu wrote:
2014-10-20 21:04 GMT+08:00 Mark Nelson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 10/20/2014 06:27 AM, Mark Wu wrote:
Test result Update:
Number of Hosts Maximum single volume IOPS Maximum
aggregated IOPS
SSD Disk IOPS SSD Disk Utilization
7 14k 45k 9800+
90%
8 21k
50k 9800+
90%
9 30k
56k 9800+ 90%
10 40k
54k 8200+
70%
Note: the disk average request size is about 20 sectors, not
same as
client side (4k)
I have two questions about the result:
1. No matter how many nodes the cluster has, the backend write
throughput is always almost 8 times of client side. Is it normal
behavior in Ceph, or caused by some wrong configuration in my
setup?
Are you counting journal writes and replication into this? Also
note that journal writes will be slightly larger and padded to a 4K
boundary for each write due to header information. I suspect for
coalesced journal writes we may be able to pack the headers together
to reduce this overhead.
Yes, the journal writes and replication are counted into backend
writes. Each ssd disk has two partitions: the raw one is used for
journal and the one formatted as xfs is used osd data. The replica
setting is 2.
So considering the journal writes and replication, I expect the writes
on backend is 4 times of client side. From the perspective of disk
utilization, it's good because it's already close to the physical
limitation.
But the overhead is too big. Is it possible to try your idea without
modifying code? If yes, I am glad to give it a try.
Sadly it will require code changes and is something we've only briefly
talked about. So it is surprising that you would see 8x writes with 2x
replication and on-disk journals imho. In the past one of the things
I've done is add up all of the totals for the entire test both on the
client side and on the server side just to make sure that the numbers
are right. At least in past testing things properly added up, at least
on our test rig.
The following data is captured in the 9 hosts test. Roughly, the
aggregated backend write throughput is 1000 * 22 * 512 * 2 * 9
= 1980M/s
The client side is 56k * 4 = 244M/s
Filesystem: rBlk_nor/s wBlk_nor/s rBlk_dir/s
wBlk_dir/s rBlk_svr/s wBlk_svr/s ops/s rops/s wops/s
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s
avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sda 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.33 0.00 10.67
8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
sdb 0.00 6.00 0.00 10219.67 0.00 223561.67
21.88 4.08 0.40 0.09 89.43
sdc 0.00 6.00 0.00 9750.67 0.00 220286.67
22.59 2.47 0.25 0.09 89.83
dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 10.67
8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Filesystem: rBlk_nor/s wBlk_nor/s rBlk_dir/s
wBlk_dir/s rBlk_svr/s wBlk_svr/s ops/s rops/s wops/s
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s
avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 26.67
26.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
sdb 0.00 6.33 0.00 10389.00 0.00 224668.67
21.63 3.78 0.36 0.09 89.23
sdc 0.00 4.33 0.00 10106.67 0.00 217986.00
21.57 3.83 0.38 0.09 91.10
dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 26.67
26.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2. For the scalability issue ( 10 hosts performs worse than 9
hosts),
is there any tuning suggestion to improve it?
Can you post exactly the test you are running and on how many
hosts/volumes? That would help us debug.
In the test, we run vdbench with the following parameters on one host:
sd=sd1,lun=/dev/rbd2,threads=128
sd=sd2,lun=/dev/rbd0,threads=128
sd=sd3,lun=/dev/rbd1,threads=128
*sd=sd4,lun=/dev/rbd3,threads=128
wd=wd1,sd=sd1,xfersize=4k,rdpct=0,openflags=o_direct
wd=wd2,sd=sd2,xfersize=4k,rdpct=0,openflags=o_direct
wd=wd3,sd=sd3,xfersize=4k,rdpct=0,openflags=o_direct
*wd=wd4,sd=sd4,xfersize=4k,rdpct=0,openflags=o_direct
rd=run1,wd=wd*,iorate=100000,elapsed=500,interval=1
Ok, I don't know a ton about vdbench. Is there any reason you are
limiting the iorate to 100000? You might try running the test on
multiple clients and seeing if that makes any difference. If you feel
like it, it might be worth also running similar tests with something
like fio just to verify that the same behaviour is present.
Thanks!
Mark
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
