There were essentialy three things we had to do for such a drastic drop

1) recompile CEPH —without-tcmalloc
2) pin the OSDs to a set of a specific NUMA zone  - we had this for a long time 
and it really helped
3) migrate the OSD memory to the correct CPU with migratepages
 - we will use cgroups in the future for this, should make life easier and is 
the only correct solution

It is similiar to the effect of just restarting the OSD, but much better - 
since we immediately see hundreds of connections on a freshly restarted OSD 
(and in the benchmark the tcmalloc issue manifested with just two clients in 
parallel) I’d say we never saw the raw performance with tcmalloc (undegraded), 
but it was never this good - consistently low latencies, much smaller spikes 
when something happens and much lower CPU usage (about 50% savings but we’re 
also backfilling a lot on the background). Workloads are faster as well - like 
reweighting OSDs on that same node was much (hundreds of percent) faster.

So far the effect has been drastic. I wonder why tcmalloc was even used when 
people are having problems with it? The glibc malloc seems to work just fine 
for us.

The only concerning thing is the virtual memory usage - we are over 400GB VSS 
with a few OSDs. That doesn’t hurt anything, though.

Jan


> On 24 Jun 2015, at 18:46, Robert LeBlanc <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Did you see what the effect of just restarting the OSDs before using 
> tcmalloc? I've noticed that there is usually a good drop for us just by 
> restarting them. I don't think it is usually this drastic.
> 
> - ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904  C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Jan Schermer  wrote:
> Can you guess when we did that?
> Still on dumpling, btw...
> 
> http://www.zviratko.net/link/notcmalloc.png 
> <http://www.zviratko.net/link/notcmalloc.png>
> 
> Jan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com 
> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com <https://www.mailvelope.com/>
> 
> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVit75CRDmVDuy+mK58QAAmjcP/jU+wyohdwKDP+FHDAgJ
> DcqdB5aPG2AM79iLcYUub5bQjdNJpcWN/hyZcNdF3aSzEV3aY6jIqu9OpOIB
> c2fIzfGOoczzW/FEf7qKRVGpxaQL21Sw1LpwMEscNe0ETz9HMHoaAnBO9IFn
> nUEOCdEpRBO5W1rWwNAx9EVnOUPklb7vVEpY23sgtHhQSprb9oeO8D99AMRz
> /RhdHKlRDgHBjun/stCiR6lFuvBUx0GBmyaMuO5rfsLGRIkySLv++3CLQI6X
> NCt/MjYwTTNNfO/y/MjkiV/j+Cm1G1lcjlgbDjilf7bgf8/7W2vJa1sMtaA4
> xJL+PpZxiKcGSdC96B+EBYxLhLcwsNpbfq7uxQOkIspa66mkIMAVzJgt4DFL
> Ca+UY3ODA26VtWF5U/hkdupgld+YSxXTyJakeShrBSFAX0a4cygV9Ll7SIhO
> IDS+0Mbur0IGzIWRgtCQhRXsc7wn3IoIovqe8Nfk4xupeoK2P5UHO1rW9pWy
> Jwj5PXieDqxgx8RKlulN1bCbSgTaEdveTiqqVxlnM9L0MhgesuB8vkpHbsqn
> mYJHNzU7ghU89xLnRuia9rBlpjw4OzagfowAJTH3UnaO67kxES+IWO8onQbN
> RhY0QR5cB5rVSjYkzzlsuLM17fQPcT8++yMarKdsrr6WIGppXUFFdATAqIaY
> DHD1
> =goL4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to