Hi Shyam,
On 17/06/16 15:59, Shyam wrote:
On 06/17/2016 04:59 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the overall post, was informative and helps clarify
some aspects of EC.
AFAIK the real problem of EC is the communications
layer. It adds a lot of latency and having to communicate simultaneously
and coordinate 6 or more bricks has a big impact.
Can you elaborate this more? Is this coordination cost lesser if EC is
coordinated from the server side graphs? (like leader/follower models in
JBR)? I have heard some remarks about a transaction manager in Gluster,
that you proposed, how does that help/fit in to resolve this issue?
I think one of the big problems is in the communications layer. I did
some tests some time ago with unexpected results. On a pure distributed
volume with a single brick mounted through FUSE on the same server that
contains the brick (no physical network communications happen) I did the
following tests:
* Modify protocol/server to immediately return a buffer of 0's for all
readv requests (I virtually disable all server side xlators for readv
requests).
Observed read speed for a dd with bs=128 KB: 349 MB/s
Observed read speed for a dd with bs=32 MB (multiple 128KB readv
requests in parallel): 744 MB/s
* Modify protocol/client to immediately return a buffer of 0's for all
readv requests (this avoids all RPC/networking code for readv requests).
Observed read speed for bs=128 KB: 428 MB/s
Observed read speed for bs=32 MB: 1530 MB/s
* An iperf reported a speed of 4.7 GB/s
The network layer seems to be adding a high overhead, specially when
many requests are sent in parallel. This is very bad for disperse.
I think the coordination effort will be similar in the server side with
current implementation. If we use the leader approach, coordination will
be much easier/fast in theory. However all communications will be
directed to a single server. That could make the communications problem
worse (I haven't tested any of this, though).
The transaction approach was thought with the idea of moving fop sorting
to the server side, without having to explicitly take locks on the
client. This would reduce the number of network round-trips and should
reduce the latency, improving overall performance.
This should have a perceptible impact in write requests, that currently
are serialized on the client side. If we move the coordination to the
server side, the client can send multiple write requests in parallel,
making better use of the network bandwidth. This also gives the brick
the opportunity to combine multiple write requests into a single disk
write. This is specially important for ec, that splits big blocks into
smaller ones for each brick.
I am curious here w.r.t DHT2, where we are breaking this down into DHT2
client and server pieces, and on the MDC (metadata cluster), the leader
brick of DHT2 subvolume is responsible for some actions, like in-memory
inode locking (say), which would otherwise be a cross subvolume lock
(costlier).
Unfortunatly I haven't had time to read the details about DHT2
implementation so I cannot say much here.
We also need transactions when we are going to update 2 different
objects with contents (simplest example is creating the inode for the
file and linking its name into the parent directory), IOW when we have a
composite operation.
The above xaction needs recording, which is a lesser evil when dealing
with a local brick, but will suffer performance penalties when dealing
with replication or EC. I am looking at ways where this xaction
recording can be compounded with the first real operation that needs to
be performed on the subvolume, but that may not always work.
So what are your thoughts in regard to improving the client side
coordination problem that you are facing?
My point of view is that *any* coordination will work much better in the
server side. Additionally, one of the features of the transaction
framework was that multiple xlators could share a single transaction on
the same inode, reducing the number of operations needed for the general
case (currently if two xlators need an exclusive lock, each of them
needs to issue an independent inodelk/entrylk fop). I know this is
evolving to the leader/follower pattern, and to have data and metadata
separated for gluster. I'm not a big fan of this approach, though.
Independently of all these changes, improving network performance will
benefit *all* approaches.
Regards,
Xavi
Thanks,
Shyam
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
