Yes, I'm wondering if this is my top performance threshold with this kind of setup, although I'll assume that IB perf would be better.. :(
*German* 2015-11-24 14:24 GMT-03:00 Mark Nelson <[email protected]>: > On 11/24/2015 09:05 AM, German Anders wrote: > >> Thanks a lot for the response Mark, I will take a look at the guide that >> you point me out. Regarding the iperf results find them below: >> >> *FDR-HOST -> to -> QDR-Blade-HOST >> * >> *(client) (server)* >> >> >> server: >> ------ >> >> # iperf -s >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Server listening on TCP port 5001 >> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default) >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> [ 4] local 172.23.18.1 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 51863 >> [ 5] local 172.23.18.1 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 51864 >> [ 6] local 172.23.18.1 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 51865 >> [ 7] local 172.23.18.1 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 51866 >> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.24 GBytes 3.64 Gbits/sec >> [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.28 GBytes 3.67 Gbits/sec >> [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.30 GBytes 3.69 Gbits/sec >> [ 7] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.34 GBytes 3.73 Gbits/sec >> [SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 17.2 GBytes 14.7 Gbits/sec >> >> client: >> ------ >> >> # iperf -c 172.23.18.1 -P 4 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Client connecting to 172.23.18.1, TCP port 5001 >> TCP window size: 2.50 MByte (default) >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> [ 6] local 172.23.16.1 port 51866 connected with 172.23.18.1 port 5001 >> [ 3] local 172.23.16.1 port 51864 connected with 172.23.18.1 port 5001 >> [ 4] local 172.23.16.1 port 51863 connected with 172.23.18.1 port 5001 >> [ 5] local 172.23.16.1 port 51865 connected with 172.23.18.1 port 5001 >> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.34 GBytes 3.73 Gbits/sec >> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.28 GBytes 3.68 Gbits/sec >> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.24 GBytes 3.64 Gbits/sec >> [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 4.30 GBytes 3.69 Gbits/sec >> [SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 17.2 GBytes 14.7 Gbits/sec >> >> > > hrm, pretty crappy. :/ > > >> *FDR-HOST -> to -> FDR-HOST >> * >> *(client) (server) >> * >> >> server: >> ------ >> >> # iperf -s >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Server listening on TCP port 5001 >> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default) >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> [ 4] local 172.23.17.5 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 59900 >> [ 6] local 172.23.17.5 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 59902 >> [ 5] local 172.23.17.5 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 59901 >> [ 7] local 172.23.17.5 port 5001 connected with 172.23.16.1 port 59903 >> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 6.76 GBytes 5.80 Gbits/sec >> [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 6.71 GBytes 5.76 Gbits/sec >> [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 6.81 GBytes 5.84 Gbits/sec >> [ 7] 0.0-11.0 sec 9.24 GBytes 7.22 Gbits/sec >> [SUM] 0.0-11.0 sec 29.5 GBytes 23.1 Gbits/sec >> >> >> client: >> ------ >> >> # iperf -c 172.23.17.5 -P 4 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Client connecting to 172.23.17.5, TCP port 5001 >> TCP window size: 2.50 MByte (default) >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> [ 6] local 172.23.16.1 port 59903 connected with 172.23.17.5 port 5001 >> [ 4] local 172.23.16.1 port 59900 connected with 172.23.17.5 port 5001 >> [ 3] local 172.23.16.1 port 59901 connected with 172.23.17.5 port 5001 >> [ 5] local 172.23.16.1 port 59902 connected with 172.23.17.5 port 5001 >> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> [ 4] 0.0- 9.0 sec 6.76 GBytes 6.45 Gbits/sec >> [ 3] 0.0- 9.0 sec 6.81 GBytes 6.49 Gbits/sec >> [ 5] 0.0- 9.0 sec 6.71 GBytes 6.40 Gbits/sec >> [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 9.24 GBytes 7.94 Gbits/sec >> [SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 29.5 GBytes 25.4 Gbits/sec >> >> > Looking better, though maybe not as good as I would expect for FDR... > > Were these tests with the affinity tuning from the mellanox guide? > > >> ** >> >> *German >> >> * >> 2015-11-24 11:51 GMT-03:00 Mark Nelson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> >> Each port should be able to do 40Gb/s or 56Gb/s minus overhead and >> any PCIe or car related bottlenecks. IPoIB will further limit that, >> especially if you haven't done any kind of interrupt affinity tuning. >> >> Assuming these are mellanox cards you'll want to read this guide: >> >> >> http://www.mellanox.com/related-docs/prod_software/Performance_Tuning_Guide_for_Mellanox_Network_Adapters.pdf >> >> For QDR I think the maximum throughput with IPoIB I've ever seen was >> about 2.7GB/s for a single port. Typically 2-2.5GB/s is probably >> about what you should expect for a well tuned setup. >> >> I'd still suggest doing iperf tests. It's really easy: >> >> "iperf -s" on one node to act as a server. >> >> "iperf -c <server ip> -P <num connections, ie: 4>" on the client >> >> This will give you an idea of how your network is doing. All-To-All >> network tests are also useful, in that sometimes network issues can >> crop up only when there's lots of traffic across many ports. We've >> seen this in lab environments, especially with bonded ethernet. >> >> Mark >> >> On 11/24/2015 07:22 AM, German Anders wrote: >> >> After doing some more in deep research and tune some parameters >> I've >> gain a little bit more of performance: >> >> # fio --rw=randread --bs=1m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 --runtime=22 >> --time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 --ioengine=libaio >> --direct=1 >> --invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 --norandommap >> --group_reporting --exitall --name >> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec >> --filename=/mnt/e60host01vol1/test1 >> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): >> rw=randread, >> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> ... >> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): >> rw=randread, >> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> fio-2.1.3 >> Starting 4 processes >> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: Laying out IO >> file(s) >> (1 file(s) / 16384MB) >> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [60.5% done] [*1714MB*/0KB/0KB /s] >> [1713/0/0 iops] >> >> [eta 00m:15s] >> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (groupid=0, >> jobs=4): >> err= 0: pid=54857: Tue Nov 24 07:56:30 2015 >> read : io=38699MB, bw=1754.2MB/s, iops=1754, runt= 22062msec >> slat (usec): min=131, max=63426, avg=2249.87, stdev=4320.91 >> clat (msec): min=2, max=321, avg=70.56, stdev=35.80 >> lat (msec): min=2, max=321, avg=72.81, stdev=36.13 >> clat percentiles (msec): >> | 1.00th=[ 13], 5.00th=[ 24], 10.00th=[ 30], >> 20.00th=[ 40], >> | 30.00th=[ 50], 40.00th=[ 57], 50.00th=[ 65], >> 60.00th=[ 75], >> | 70.00th=[ 85], 80.00th=[ 98], 90.00th=[ 120], >> 95.00th=[ 139], >> | 99.00th=[ 178], 99.50th=[ 194], 99.90th=[ 229], >> 99.95th=[ 247], >> | 99.99th=[ 273] >> bw (KB /s): min=301056, max=612352, per=25.01%, >> avg=449291.87, >> stdev=54288.85 >> lat (msec) : 4=0.11%, 10=0.61%, 20=2.11%, 50=27.87%, >> 100=50.92% >> lat (msec) : 250=18.34%, 500=0.03% >> cpu : usr=0.19%, sys=33.60%, ctx=66708, majf=0, >> minf=636 >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.2%, >> 32=99.7%, >> >=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=38699/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> READ: io=38699MB, aggrb=*1754.2MB/s*, minb=1754.2MB/s, >> >> maxb=1754.2MB/s, mint=22062msec, maxt=22062msec >> >> Disk stats (read/write): >> rbd1: ios=77386/17, merge=0/122, ticks=3168312/500, >> in_queue=3170168, >> util=99.76% >> >> The thing is that this test was running from a 'HP Blade >> enclosure with >> QDR' so I think that if in QDR the max Throughput is around 3.2 >> GB/s (I >> guess that this number must be divided by the total number of >> ports, in >> this case 2, so a maximum of 1.6GB/s is the max of throughput >> that I'll >> get on a single port, is that correct? Also I made another test in >> another host that also had FDR so (max throughput would be >> around 6.8 >> GB/s), and if the same theory is valid, that would lead me to >> 3.4 GB/s >> per port, but I'm not getting more than 1.4 - 1.6 GB/s, any >> ideas? same >> tuning on both servers. >> >> Basically I changed the scaling_governor of the cpufreq of all >> cpus to >> 'performance' and then set the following values: >> >> sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps=0 >> sysctl -w net.core.netdev_max_backlog=250000 >> sysctl -w net.core.rmem_max=4194304 >> sysctl -w net.core.wmem_max=4194304 >> sysctl -w net.core.rmem_default=4194304 >> sysctl -w net.core.wmem_default=4194304 >> sysctl -w net.core.optmem_max=4194304 >> sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_rmem="4096 87380 4194304" >> sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_wmem="4096 65536 4194304" >> sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_low_latency=1 >> >> >> However, on the HP blade, there's no Intel CPUs like the other >> server, >> so this kind of 'tuning' can't be done, so I left it as a >> default and >> only changed the TCP networking part. >> >> Any comments or hint would be really appreciated. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Best, >> >> >> ** >> >> *German >> >> * >> 2015-11-23 15:06 GMT-03:00 Robert LeBlanc <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>: >> >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> Are you using unconnected mode or connected mode? With >> connected mode >> you can up your MTU to 64K which may help on the network >> side. >> - ---------------- >> Robert LeBlanc >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 >> FA62 B9F1 >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:40 AM, German Anders wrote: >> > Hi Mark, >> > >> > Thanks a lot for the quick response. Regarding the >> numbers that >> you send me, >> > they look REALLY nice. I've the following setup >> > >> > 4 OSD nodes: >> > >> > 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2650v2 @2.60Ghz >> > 1 x Network controller: Mellanox Technologies MT27500 >> Family >> [ConnectX-3] >> > Dual-Port (1 for PUB and 1 for CLUS) >> > 1 x SAS2308 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 >> > 8 x Intel SSD DC S3510 800GB (1 OSD on each drive + >> journal on >> the same >> > drive, so 1:1 relationship) >> > 3 x Intel SSD DC S3710 200GB (to be used maybe as a >> cache tier) >> > 128GB RAM >> > >> > [0:0:0:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 >> /dev/sdc >> > [0:0:1:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 >> /dev/sdd >> > [0:0:2:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BA20 0110 >> /dev/sde >> > [0:0:3:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdf >> > [0:0:4:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdg >> > [0:0:5:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdh >> > [0:0:6:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdi >> > [0:0:7:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdj >> > [0:0:8:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdk >> > [0:0:9:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdl >> > [0:0:10:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2BB80 0130 >> /dev/sdm >> > >> > sdf 8:80 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdf1 8:81 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-16 >> > `-sdf2 8:82 0 5G 0 part >> > sdg 8:96 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdg1 8:97 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-17 >> > `-sdg2 8:98 0 5G 0 part >> > sdh 8:112 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdh1 8:113 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18 >> > `-sdh2 8:114 0 5G 0 part >> > sdi 8:128 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdi1 8:129 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-19 >> > `-sdi2 8:130 0 5G 0 part >> > sdj 8:144 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdj1 8:145 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-20 >> > `-sdj2 8:146 0 5G 0 part >> > sdk 8:160 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdk1 8:161 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-21 >> > `-sdk2 8:162 0 5G 0 part >> > sdl 8:176 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdl1 8:177 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-22 >> > `-sdl2 8:178 0 5G 0 part >> > sdm 8:192 0 745.2G 0 disk >> > |-sdm1 8:193 0 740.2G 0 part >> > /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-23 >> > `-sdm2 8:194 0 5G 0 part >> > >> > >> > $ rados bench -p rbd 20 write --no-cleanup -t 4 >> > Maintaining 4 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes for up >> to 20 >> seconds or 0 >> > objects >> > Object prefix: benchmark_data_cibm01_1409 >> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s >> last lat >> avg lat >> > 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> - >> 0 >> > 1 4 121 117 467.894 468 >> 0.0337203 >> 0.0336809 >> > 2 4 244 240 479.895 492 >> 0.0304306 >> 0.0330524 >> > 3 4 372 368 490.559 512 >> 0.0361914 >> 0.0323822 >> > 4 4 491 487 486.899 476 >> 0.0346544 >> 0.0327169 >> > 5 4 587 583 466.302 384 >> 0.110718 >> 0.0342427 >> > 6 4 701 697 464.575 456 >> 0.0324953 >> 0.0343136 >> > 7 4 811 807 461.053 440 >> 0.0400344 >> 0.0345994 >> > 8 4 923 919 459.412 448 >> 0.0255677 >> 0.0345767 >> > 9 4 1032 1028 456.803 436 >> 0.0309743 >> 0.0349256 >> > 10 4 1119 1115 445.917 348 >> 0.229508 >> 0.0357856 >> > 11 4 1222 1218 442.826 412 >> 0.0277902 >> 0.0360635 >> > 12 4 1315 1311 436.919 372 >> 0.0303377 >> 0.0365673 >> > 13 4 1424 1420 436.842 436 >> 0.0288001 >> 0.03659 >> > 14 4 1524 1520 434.206 400 >> 0.0360993 >> 0.0367697 >> > 15 4 1632 1628 434.054 432 >> 0.0296406 >> 0.0366877 >> > 16 4 1740 1736 433.921 432 >> 0.0310995 >> 0.0367746 >> > 17 4 1836 1832 430.98 384 >> 0.0250518 >> 0.0370169 >> > 18 4 1941 1937 430.366 420 >> 0.027502 >> 0.0371341 >> > 19 4 2049 2045 430.448 432 >> 0.0260257 >> 0.0370807 >> > 2015-11-23 12:10:58.587087min lat: 0.0229266 max lat: >> 0.27063 avg >> lat: >> > 0.0373936 >> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s >> last lat >> avg lat >> > 20 4 2141 2137 427.322 368 >> 0.0351276 >> 0.0373936 >> > Total time run: 20.186437 >> > Total writes made: 2141 >> > Write size: 4194304 >> > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 424.245 >> > >> > Stddev Bandwidth: 102.136 >> > Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 512 >> > Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0 >> > Average Latency: 0.0376536 >> > Stddev Latency: 0.032886 >> > Max latency: 0.27063 >> > Min latency: 0.0229266 >> > >> > >> > $ rados bench -p rbd 20 seq --no-cleanup -t 4 >> > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s >> last lat >> avg lat >> > 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> - >> 0 >> > 1 4 394 390 1559.52 1560 >> 0.0148888 >> 0.0102236 >> > 2 4 753 749 1496.68 1436 >> 0.0129162 >> 0.0106595 >> > 3 4 1137 1133 1509.65 1536 >> 0.0101854 >> 0.0105731 >> > 4 4 1526 1522 1521.17 1556 >> 0.0122154 >> 0.0103827 >> > 5 4 1890 1886 1508.07 >> 14560.00825445 >> 0.0105908 >> > Total time run: 5.675418 >> > Total reads made: 2141 >> > Read size: 4194304 >> > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 1508.964 >> > >> > Average Latency: 0.0105951 >> > Max latency: 0.211469 >> > Min latency: 0.00603694 >> > >> > >> > I'm not even close to those numbers that you are >> getting... :( >> any ideas? or >> > hints? Also I've configured NOOP as the scheduler for >> all the SSD >> disks. I >> > don't know really what else to look for, in order to >> improve >> performance and >> > get some similar numbers from what you are getting >> > >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > >> > German >> > >> > 2015-11-23 13:32 GMT-03:00 Mark Nelson : >> >> >> >> Hi German, >> >> >> >> I don't have exactly the same setup, but on the ceph >> community >> cluster I >> >> have tests with: >> >> >> >> 4 nodes, each of which are configured in some tests with: >> >> >> >> 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2650 >> >> 1 x Intel XL710 40GbE (currently limited to about >> 2.5GB/s each) >> >> 1 x Intel P3700 800GB (4 OSDs per card using 4 data and >> 4 journal >> >> partitions) >> >> 64GB RAM >> >> >> >> With filestore, I can get an aggregate throughput of: >> >> >> >> 1MB randread: 8715.3MB/s >> >> 4MB randread: 8046.2MB/s >> >> >> >> This is with 4 fio instances on the same nodes as the >> OSDs using >> the fio >> >> librbd engine. >> >> >> >> A couple of things I would suggest trying: >> >> >> >> 1) See how rados bench does. This is an easy test and >> you can >> see how >> >> different the numbers look. >> >> >> >> 2) try fio with librbd to see if it might be a qemu >> limitation. >> >> >> >> 3) Assuming you are using IPoIB, try some iperf tests >> to see how >> your >> >> network is doing. >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/23/2015 10:17 AM, German Anders wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks a lot for the quick update Greg. This lead me >> to ask if >> there's >> >>> anything out there to improve performance in an >> Infiniband >> environment >> >>> with Ceph. In the cluster that I mentioned earlier. >> I've setup >> 4 OSD >> >>> server nodes nodes each with 8 OSD daemons running >> with 800x >> Intel SSD >> >>> DC S3710 disks (740.2G for OSD and 5G for Journal) and >> also >> using IB FDR >> >>> 56Gb/s for the PUB and CLUS network, and I'm getting the >> following fio >> >>> numbers: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> # fio --rw=randread --bs=1m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 >> --runtime=22 >> >>> --time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 >> --ioengine=libaio >> --direct=1 >> >>> --invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 >> --norandommap >> >>> --group_reporting --exitall --name >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec >> >>> --filename=/mnt/rbd/test1 >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): >> rw=randread, >> >>> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> >>> ... >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: (g=0): >> rw=randread, >> >>> bs=1M-1M/1M-1M/1M-1M, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >> >>> fio-2.1.3 >> >>> Starting 4 processes >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: >> Laying out IO >> file(s) >> >>> (1 file(s) / 16384MB) >> >>> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [33.8% done] [1082MB/0KB/0KB /s] >> [1081/0/0 iops] >> >>> [eta 00m:45s] >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-1m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: >> (groupid=0, >> jobs=4): >> >>> err= 0: pid=63852: Mon Nov 23 10:48:07 2015 >> >>> read : io=21899MB, bw=988.23MB/s, iops=988, runt= >> 22160msec >> >>> slat (usec): min=192, max=186274, avg=3990.48, >> stdev=7533.77 >> >>> clat (usec): min=10, max=808610, avg=125099.41, >> stdev=90717.56 >> >>> lat (msec): min=6, max=809, avg=129.09, >> stdev=91.14 >> >>> clat percentiles (msec): >> >>> | 1.00th=[ 27], 5.00th=[ 38], 10.00th=[ >> 45], >> 20.00th=[ >> >>> 61], >> >>> | 30.00th=[ 74], 40.00th=[ 85], 50.00th=[ >> 100], >> 60.00th=[ >> >>> 117], >> >>> | 70.00th=[ 141], 80.00th=[ 174], 90.00th=[ >> 235], >> 95.00th=[ >> >>> 297], >> >>> | 99.00th=[ 482], 99.50th=[ 578], 99.90th=[ >> 717], >> 99.95th=[ >> >>> 750], >> >>> | 99.99th=[ 775] >> >>> bw (KB /s): min=134691, max=335872, per=25.08%, >> avg=253748.08, >> >>> stdev=40454.88 >> >>> lat (usec) : 20=0.01% >> >>> lat (msec) : 10=0.02%, 20=0.27%, 50=12.90%, >> 100=36.93%, >> 250=41.39% >> >>> lat (msec) : 500=7.59%, 750=0.84%, 1000=0.05% >> >>> cpu : usr=0.11%, sys=26.76%, ctx=39695, >> majf=0, >> minf=405 >> >>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, >> 16=0.3%, >> 32=99.4%, >> >>> >=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=21899/w=0/d=0, >> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> >>> >> >>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> >>> READ: io=21899MB, aggrb=988.23MB/s, minb=988.23MB/s, >> >>> maxb=988.23MB/s, mint=22160msec, maxt=22160msec >> >>> >> >>> Disk stats (read/write): >> >>> rbd1: ios=43736/163, merge=0/5, ticks=3189484/15276, >> >>> in_queue=3214988, util=99.78% >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ############################################################################################################################################################ >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> # fio --rw=randread --bs=4m --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 >> --runtime=22 >> >>> --time_based --size=16777216k --loops=1 >> --ioengine=libaio >> --direct=1 >> >>> --invalidate=1 --fsync_on_close=1 --randrepeat=1 >> --norandommap >> >>> --group_reporting --exitall --name >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec >> >>> --filename=/mnt/rbd/test2 >> >>> >> >>> fio-2.1.3 >> >>> Starting 4 processes >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: >> Laying out IO >> file(s) >> >>> (1 file(s) / 16384MB) >> >>> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [rrrr] [28.7% done] [894.3MB/0KB/0KB /s] >> [223/0/0 iops] >> >>> [eta 00m:57s] >> >>> dev-ceph-randread-4m-4thr-libaio-32iodepth-22sec: >> (groupid=0, >> jobs=4): >> >>> err= 0: pid=64654: Mon Nov 23 10:51:58 2015 >> >>> read : io=18952MB, bw=876868KB/s, iops=214, runt= >> 22132msec >> >>> slat (usec): min=518, max=81398, avg=18576.88, >> stdev=14840.55 >> >>> clat (msec): min=90, max=1915, avg=570.37, >> stdev=166.51 >> >>> lat (msec): min=123, max=1936, avg=588.95, >> stdev=169.19 >> >>> clat percentiles (msec): >> >>> | 1.00th=[ 258], 5.00th=[ 343], 10.00th=[ >> 383], >> 20.00th=[ >> >>> 437], >> >>> | 30.00th=[ 482], 40.00th=[ 519], 50.00th=[ >> 553], >> 60.00th=[ >> >>> 594], >> >>> | 70.00th=[ 627], 80.00th=[ 685], 90.00th=[ >> 775], >> 95.00th=[ >> >>> 865], >> >>> | 99.00th=[ 1057], 99.50th=[ 1156], 99.90th=[ >> 1680], >> 99.95th=[ >> >>> 1860], >> >>> | 99.99th=[ 1909] >> >>> bw (KB /s): min= 5665, max=383251, per=24.61%, >> avg=215755.74, >> >>> stdev=61735.70 >> >>> lat (msec) : 100=0.02%, 250=0.80%, 500=33.88%, >> 750=53.31%, >> >>> 1000=10.26% >> >>> lat (msec) : 2000=1.73% >> >>> cpu : usr=0.07%, sys=12.52%, ctx=32466, >> majf=0, >> minf=372 >> >>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.2%, 4=0.3%, 8=0.7%, >> 16=1.4%, >> 32=97.4%, >> >>> >=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=99.9%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, >> 32=0.1%, >> 64=0.0%, >> >>> >=64=0.0% >> >>> issued : total=r=4738/w=0/d=0, >> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >> >>> >> >>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >> >>> READ: io=18952MB, aggrb=876868KB/s, minb=876868KB/s, >> >>> maxb=876868KB/s, mint=22132msec, maxt=22132msec >> >>> >> >>> Disk stats (read/write): >> >>> rbd1: ios=37721/177, merge=0/5, ticks=3075924/11408, >> >>> in_queue=3097448, util=99.77% >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Can anyone share some results from a similar >> environment? >> >>> >> >>> Thanks in advance, >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> ** >> >>> >> >>> *German* >> >>> >> >>> 2015-11-23 13:08 GMT-03:00 Gregory Farnum >> >: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:05 AM, German Anders >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > Hi all, >> >>> > >> >>> > I want to know if there's any improvement or >> update >> regarding ceph >> >>> 0.94.5 >> >>> > with accelio, I've an already configured cluster >> (with no >> data on >> >>> it) and I >> >>> > would like to know if there's a way to 'modify' >> the >> cluster in >> >>> order to use >> >>> > accelio. Any info would be really appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> The XioMessenger is still experimental. As far as >> I know >> it's not >> >>> expected to be stable any time soon and I can't >> imagine it >> will be >> >>> backported to Hammer even when done. >> >>> -Greg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> ceph-users mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ceph-users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.3 >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWU1WqCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAo5cQALjuZB+dyjbcRDyScvj/ >> qjurMqCHlScgG9U8CE4L6/E/QUfCNmdvE4KaeQC82oj/SplXYOuglTHJkUMg >> KPyjb9jJs+ZyS560IoUB/l/XQZpO9WL+DNnSAg96Hpb3eG+G5jukW9/E/QHQ >> aDjn/c1njEqUhxMAosUFZR58CxejyyI5Vr/SXX+oE6y2tCF31Z3KPiOVTOtj >> BPIx74xpigXMSP+zaK4UelhjPzrRnefkN2sLpQS5uwJlOY1f35KoM3dX+LHO >> 2BWpyrLUtL6ZzpalKr/QbaWko1VM109vjAoPZ3X82ig9DZp2DW8ZVX4abVcy >> +Zyre4SCncKFJZcL9VkQHPJxRFhqXHC43mpSHIKmhuhmGVwr9ngiKGUY1Q7t >> O0aks06KHfqSRxjWmuhtP0eMLwsH7gLAEqqtAjnIhRTCDDkhRdp/MdZJ7ftO >> LHF9+Eqdp/KiVrGK7BX9zwVshr608bR4g7JCfK4/ukSHXOWFVR6GZ8jue85q >> e6dWhHsdwrPt1QnSrfhnKjoMdhTpvPVzlxqo2jHDXEyE57RxW/zXr776HxcQ >> cISj4zDZ0nGZ1F8w4DdB0ql8CpsCDAEoaNG0ZQPXcItyrHIB0lFOJYDi5m+4 >> YqOCG8TWh7b28IbEEwwUSpx3pi2iyH0ObJZM5dgf62AOCKCEsixf+UguFVwd >> /jdL >> =6LtO >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
