Hi Preston,
Replies to some of your cinder-related questions:
1. Creating a snapshot isn't usually an I/O intensive operation.  Are you
seeing I/O spike or CPU?  If you're seeing CPU load, I've seen the CPU
usage of cinder-api spike sometimes - not sure why.
2. The 'dd' processes that you see are Cinder wiping the volumes during
deletion.  You can either disable this in cinder.conf, or you can use a
relatively new option to manage the bandwidth used for this.

IMHO, deployments should be optimized to not do very long/intensive
management operations - for example, use backends with efficient snapshots,
use CoW operations wherever possible rather than copying full
volumes/images, disabling wipe on delete, etc.


On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Preston L. Bannister <pres...@bannister.us>

> OK, I am fairly new here (to OpenStack). Maybe I am missing something. Or
> not.
> Have a DevStack, running in a VM (VirtualBox), backed by a single flash
> drive (on my current generation MacBook). Could be I have something off in
> my setup.
> Testing nova backup - first the existing implementation, then my (much
> changed) replacement.
> Simple scripts for testing. Create images. Create instances (five). Run
> backup on all instances.
> Currently found in:
> https://github.com/dreadedhill-work/stack-backup/tree/master/backup-scripts
> First time I started backups of all (five) instances, load on the Devstack
> VM went insane, and all but one backup failed. Seems that all of the
> backups were performed immediately (or attempted), without any sort of
> queuing or load management. Huh. Well, maybe just the backup implementation
> is naive...
> I will write on this at greater length, but backup should interfere as
> little as possible with foreground processing. Overloading a host is
> entirely unacceptable.
> Replaced the backup implementation so it does proper queuing (among other
> things). Iterating forward - implementing and testing.
> Fired off snapshots on five Cinder volumes (attached to five instances).
> Again the load shot very high. Huh. Well, in a full-scale OpenStack setup,
> maybe storage can handle that much I/O more gracefully ... or not. Again,
> should taking snapshots interfere with foreground activity? I would say,
> most often not. Queuing and serializing snapshots would strictly limit the
> interference with foreground. Also, very high end storage can perform
> snapshots *very* quickly, so serialized snapshots will not be slow. My take
> is that the default behavior should be to queue and serialize all heavy I/O
> operations, with non-default allowances for limited concurrency.
> Cleaned up (which required reboot/unstack/stack and more). Tried again.
> Ran two test backups (which in the current iteration create Cinder volume
> snapshots). Asked Cinder to delete the snapshots. Again, very high load
> factors, and in "top" I can see two long-running "dd" processes. (Given I
> have a single disk, more than one "dd" is not good.)
> Running too many heavyweight operations against storage can lead to
> thrashing. Queuing can strictly limit that load, and insure better and
> reliable performance. I am not seeing evidence of this thought in my
> OpenStack testing.
> So far it looks like there is no thought to managing the impact of disk
> intensive management operations. Am I missing something?
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to