Hi, some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest. And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc, I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug. increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help. with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc. The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ... ----- Mail original ----- De: "pushpesh sharma" <[email protected]> À: "aderumier" <[email protected]> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]>, "Irek Fasikhov" <[email protected]>, "ceph-devel" <[email protected]>, "ceph-users" <[email protected]> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21 Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some expert opinion. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src > > (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks). > > I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it. > > > <domain type='qemu'> > <name>QEMUGuest1</name> > <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid> > <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory> > <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory> > <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu> > <iothreads>2</iothreads> > <os> > <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type> > <boot dev='hd'/> > </os> > <clock offset='utc'/> > <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff> > <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot> > <on_crash>destroy</on_crash> > <devices> > <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator> > <disk type='file' device='disk'> > <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/> > <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/> > <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/> > <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/> > </disk> > <disk type='file' device='disk'> > <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/> > <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/> > <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/> > </disk> > <controller type='usb' index='0'/> > <controller type='ide' index='0'/> > <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/> > <memballoon model='none'/> > </devices> > </domain> > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "pushpesh sharma" <[email protected]> > À: "aderumier" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]>, "Irek Fasikhov" > <[email protected]>, "ceph-devel" <[email protected]>, "ceph-users" > <[email protected]> > Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41 > Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k > > Hi Alexandre, > > I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in > IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set > the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM. > As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit > domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in > openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional > metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems > to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a > hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason > libvirt validation fails on the same. > > #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml > #virt-xml-validate vm.xml > Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave > vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain > failed to validate content > vm.xml fails to validate > > Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there > is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted > to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes. > > Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like > hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again > no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check > in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml. > > Could you suggest me a way to set the same. > > -Pushpesh > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if >>>>I need some qemu setting trick :-) >> >> Sure no problem. >> >> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 >> iothread by disk) >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Somnath Roy" <[email protected]> >> À: "aderumier" <[email protected]>, "Irek Fasikhov" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "ceph-devel" <[email protected]>, "pushpesh sharma" >> <[email protected]>, "ceph-users" <[email protected]> >> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32 >> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >> Hi Alexandre, >> Thanks for sharing the data. >> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I >> need some qemu setting trick :-) >> >> Regards >> Somnath >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ceph-users [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Alexandre DERUMIER >> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM >> To: Irek Fasikhov >> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >>>>Very good work! >>>>Do you have a rpm-file? >>>>Thanks. >> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as >> client) >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <[email protected]> >> À: "aderumier" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <[email protected]>, "ceph-devel" >> <[email protected]>, "pushpesh sharma" <[email protected]>, >> "ceph-users" <[email protected]> >> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42 >> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >> Hi, Alexandre. >> >> Very good work! >> Do you have a rpm-file? >> Thanks. >> >> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < [email protected] > : >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with >> iothread: 50k iops (+45%) ! >> >> >> >> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc >> (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) >> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%) >> >> >> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : >> iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%) >> >> >> >> >> >> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%) >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 >> 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, >> max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, >> avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474], >> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652], >> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980], >> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896], >> | 99.99th=[ 3760] >> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, >> stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% >> lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, >> ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, >> 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, >> 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, >> 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, >> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, >> mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73% >> >> >> >> >> >> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 >> 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, >> max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, >> avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596], >> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940], >> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416], >> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640], >> | 99.99th=[ 3632] >> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 >> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : >> 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, >> minf=38 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >> >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >> >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >> >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : >> target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, >> mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, >> util=99.85% >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "aderumier" < [email protected] > >> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < [email protected] > >> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < [email protected] >, "ceph-devel" < >> [email protected] >, "pushpesh sharma" < [email protected] >, >> "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27 >> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >> Hi Robert, >> >>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or >>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of >>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case). >> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than >> jemalloc. >> >> >> >>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to >>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much >>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1] >> >> >> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed >> regression with tcmalloc. >> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib >> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease >> >> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase >> >> this is with >> -qemu 2.3 >> -tcmalloc 2.2.1 >> -jemmaloc 3.6 >> -libc6 2.19 >> >> >> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 >> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%) >> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) >> >> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) >> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) >> >> >> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm) >> >> >> fio results: >> ------------ >> >> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 >> ----------------------------------------- >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 >> 18:16:53 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42 >> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34 >> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572], >> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852], >> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352], >> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448], >> | 99.99th=[ 3888] >> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, >> stdev=16978.03 >> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63% >> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01% >> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, >> mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77% >> >> >> >> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 >> --------------------------------------------- >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 >> 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57 >> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61 >> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652], >> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940], >> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576], >> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248], >> | 99.99th=[ 4320] >> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77 >> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60% >> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01% >> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, >> mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, >> util=99.86% >> >> >> >> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >> ------------------------------------- >> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 >> 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66 >> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28 >> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652], >> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964], >> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448], >> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640], >> | 99.99th=[ 3984] >> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, >> stdev=15521.30 >> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82% >> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01% >> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, >> mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, >> util=99.85% >> >> >> >> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 >> ----------------------------------------- >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 >> 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29 >> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51 >> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652], >> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996], >> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528], >> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928], >> | 99.99th=[ 4832] >> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, >> stdev=19121.91 >> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98% >> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% >> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, >> mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, >> util=99.84% >> >> >> >> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 >> ---------------------------------------- >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:01s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 >> 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77 >> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55 >> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820], >> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224], >> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688], >> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832], >> | 99.99th=[ 3760] >> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70 >> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33% >> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% >> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, >> mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, >> util=98.68% >> >> >> >> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 >> -------------------------------------------- >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.11 >> Starting 1 process >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] >> [eta 00m:00s] >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 >> 2015 >> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec >> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74 >> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53 >> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22 >> clat percentiles (usec): >> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516], >> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740], >> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128], >> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064], >> | 99.99th=[ 2608] >> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, >> stdev=23440.79 >> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46% >> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07% >> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% >> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, >> mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80% >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < [email protected] > >> À: "aderumier" < [email protected] > >> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < [email protected] >, "ceph-devel" < >> [email protected] >, "pushpesh sharma" < [email protected] >, >> "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29 >> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory >> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either >> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc >> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be >> the case). >> >> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to >> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much >> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1] >> >> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and >> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the >> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with >> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be. >> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge >> difference. [2] >> >> Further down the rabbit hole.... >> >> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20197.html >> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg23982.html >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1 >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8 >> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU >> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87 >> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2 >> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3 >> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51 >> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO >> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3 >> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b >> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13 >> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ >> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4 >> oSJX >> =k281 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> ---------------- >> Robert LeBlanc >> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < [email protected] > >> wrote: >>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K >>>>>IOPS from 1 VM! >>> >>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll >>> have overhead. >>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon) >>> >>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs? >>> >>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes. >>> >>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500), >>> >>> For 1 client, >>> >>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd. >>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd. >>> >>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k >>> iops by osd when datas are in buffer. >>> >>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon) >>> >>> >>> >>> small tip : >>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by >>> around 20% >>> >>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ... >>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ... >>> >>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free >>> >>> >>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html ) >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Mark Nelson" < [email protected] > >>> À: "aderumier" < [email protected] >, "pushpesh sharma" < >>> [email protected] > >>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < [email protected] >, "ceph-users" < >>> [email protected] > >>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31 >>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've >>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read >>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple >>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can >>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like. >>> >>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K >>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs? >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: >>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16) >>>> >>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents >>>> queue depth size. >>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16 >>>> >>>> >>>> cache >>>> ----- >>>> qd1: 1651 >>>> qd2: 3482 >>>> qd4: 7958 >>>> qd8: 17912 >>>> qd16: 36020 >>>> qd32: 42765 >>>> qd64: 46169 >>>> >>>> no cache >>>> -------- >>>> qd1: 1748 >>>> qd2: 3570 >>>> qd4: 8356 >>>> qd8: 17732 >>>> qd16: 41396 >>>> qd32: 78633 >>>> qd64: 79063 >>>> qd128: 79550 >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "aderumier" < [email protected] > >>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < [email protected] > >>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < [email protected] >, "ceph-users" < >>>> [email protected] > >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21 >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. >>>> >>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use >>>> iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with >>>> virtio-blk). >>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks. >>>> >>>> >>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host. >>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host >>>> and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on. >>>> >>>> >>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with >>>> 1osd. >>>> >>>> I'm going to see if this tracker >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056 >>>> >>>> could be the cause. >>>> >>>> (My master build was done some week ago) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < [email protected] > >>>> À: "aderumier" < [email protected] > >>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < [email protected] >, "ceph-users" < >>>> [email protected] > >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04 >>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>>> >>>> Hi Alexandre, >>>> >>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing >>>> some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). >>>> Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. >>>> For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM >>>> beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. >>>> However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to >>>> some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more >>>> VMs. >>>> >>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each >>>> hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and >>>> CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and >>>> that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we >>>> haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU >>>> pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck. >>>> >>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were >>>> scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than >>>> scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single >>>> pipe more congestion effect) >>>> >>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to >>>> performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < [email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32, >>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k >>>> >>>> >>>> no cache >>>> -------- >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops >>>> >>>> >>>> cache >>>> ----- >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops >>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is it expected ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9 >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] >>>> [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 07:48:42 2015 >>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec >>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77 >>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82 >>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, >>>> stdev=25196.21 >>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, >>>> mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, >>>> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, >>>> aggrutil=0.00% >>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9 >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] >>>> [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 07:47:30 2015 >>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec >>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84 >>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73 >>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, >>>> stdev=15079.93 >>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, >>>> mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, >>>> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, >>>> aggrutil=0.01% >>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01% >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович >> Моб.: +79229045757 >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> ________________________________ >> >> 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). >> > > > > -- > -Pushpesh > > > -- -Pushpesh _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
