date:20191204

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

2019-12-04 Thread Moreno Diego (ID SIS)

I recently did some work on 40Gb and 100Gb ethernet interfaces and these are a 
few of the things that helped me during lnet_selftest:


  *   On lnet: credits set to higher than the default (e.g: 1024 or more), 
peer_credits to 128 at least for network testing (it’s just 8 by default which 
is good for a big cluster maybe not for lnet_selftest with 2 clients),
  *   On ksocklnd module options: more schedulers (10, 6 by default which was 
not enough for my server), also changed some of the buffers (tx_buffer_size and 
rx_buffer_size set to 1073741824) but you need to be very careful on these
  *   Sysctl.conf: increase buffers (tcp_rmem, tcp_wmem, check window_scaling, 
net.core.max and default, check disabling timestamps if you can afford it)
  *   Other: cpupower governor (set to performance at least for testing), BIOS 
settings (e.g: on my AMD routers it was better to disable  HT, disable a few 
virtualization oriented features and set the PCI config to performance). 
Basically, be aware that Lustre ethernet’s performance will take CPU resources 
so better optimize for it

Last but not least be aware that Lustre’s ethernet driver (ksocklnd) does not 
load balance as well as Infiniband’s (ko2iblnd). I already saw sometimes 
several Lustre peers using the same socklnd thread on the destination but the 
other socklnd threads might not be active which means that your entire load is 
on just dependent on one core. For that the best is to try with more clients 
and check in your node what’s the cpu load per thread with top. 2 clients do 
not seem enough to me. With the proper configuration you should be perfectly 
able to saturate a 25Gb link in lnet_selftest.

Regards,

Diego


From: lustre-discuss  on behalf of 
Pinkesh Valdria 
Date: Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 06:14
To: Jongwoo Han 
Cc: "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

Thanks Jongwoo.

I have the MTU set for 9000 and also ring buffer setting set to max.


ip link set dev $primaryNICInterface mtu 9000

ethtool -G $primaryNICInterface rx 2047 tx 2047 rx-jumbo 8191

I read about changing  Interrupt Coalesce, but unable to find what values 
should be changed and also if it really helps or not.
# Several packets in a rapid sequence can be coalesced into one interrupt 
passed up to the CPU, providing more CPU time for application processing.

Thanks,
Pinkesh valdria
Oracle Cloud



From: Jongwoo Han 
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 8:07 PM
To: Pinkesh Valdria 
Cc: Andreas Dilger , "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 

Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

Have you tried MTU >= 9000 bytes (AKA jumbo frame) on the 25G ethernet and the 
switch?
If it is set to 1500 bytes, ethernet + IP + TCP frame headers take quite amount 
of packet, reducing available bandwidth for data.

Jongwoo Han

2019년 11월 28일 (목) 오전 3:44, Pinkesh Valdria 
mailto:pinkesh.vald...@oracle.com>>님이 작성:
Thanks Andreas for your response.

I ran anotherLnet Self test with 48 concurrent processes, since the nodes have 
52 physical cores and I was able to achieve same throughput (2052.71  MiB/s = 
2152 MB/s).

Is it expected to lose almost 600 MB/s (2750-2150= ) due to overheads on 
ethernet with Lnet?


Thanks,
Pinkesh Valdria
Oracle Cloud Infrastructure




From: Andreas Dilger mailto:adil...@whamcloud.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:25 AM
To: Pinkesh Valdria 
mailto:pinkesh.vald...@oracle.com>>
Cc: "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 
mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org>>
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

The first thing to note is that lst reports results in binary units
(MiB/s) while iperf reports results in decimal units (Gbps).  If you do the
conversion you get 2055.31 MiB/s = 2155 MB/s.

The other thing to check is the CPU usage. For TCP the CPU usage can
be high. You should try RoCE+o2iblnd instead.

Cheers, Andreas

On Nov 26, 2019, at 21:26, Pinkesh Valdria 
mailto:pinkesh.vald...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hello All,

I created a new Lustre cluster on CentOS7.6 and I am running 
lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh to measure throughput on the network.  The nodes are 
connected to each other using 25Gbps ethernet, so theoretical max is 25 Gbps * 
125 = 3125 MB/s.Using iperf3,  I get 22Gbps (2750 MB/s) between the nodes.


[root@lustre-client-2 ~]# for c in 1 2 4 8 12 16 20 24 ;  do echo $c ; 
ST=lst-output-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H:%M:%S)  CN=$c  SZ=1M  TM=30 BRW=write 
CKSUM=simple LFROM="10.0.3.7@tcp1" LTO="10.0.3.6@tcp1" 
/root/lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh; done ;

When I run lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh (from Lustre 
wiki)
 between 2 nodes,  I get a max of  2055.31  MiB/s,  Is that expected at the 
Lnet level?  Or can I

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

2019-12-04 Thread Pinkesh Valdria

Thanks Jongwoo. 

 

I have the MTU set for 9000 and also ring buffer setting set to max. 

 

ip link set dev $primaryNICInterface mtu 9000

ethtool -G $primaryNICInterface rx 2047 tx 2047 rx-jumbo 8191

 

I read about changing  Interrupt Coalesce, but unable to find what values 
should be changed and also if it really helps or not. 

# Several packets in a rapid sequence can be coalesced into one interrupt 
passed up to the CPU, providing more CPU time for application processing.

 

Thanks,

Pinkesh valdria

Oracle Cloud

 

 

 

From: Jongwoo Han 
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 8:07 PM
To: Pinkesh Valdria 
Cc: Andreas Dilger , "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 

Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

 

Have you tried MTU >= 9000 bytes (AKA jumbo frame) on the 25G ethernet and the 
switch? 

If it is set to 1500 bytes, ethernet + IP + TCP frame headers take quite amount 
of packet, reducing available bandwidth for data.

 

Jongwoo Han

 

2019년 11월 28일 (목) 오전 3:44, Pinkesh Valdria 님이 작성:

Thanks Andreas for your response.  

 

I ran anotherLnet Self test with 48 concurrent processes, since the nodes have 
52 physical cores and I was able to achieve same throughput (2052.71  MiB/s = 
2152 MB/s).

 

Is it expected to lose almost 600 MB/s (2750-2150= ) due to overheads on 
ethernet with Lnet?

 

 

Thanks,

Pinkesh Valdria

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 

 

 

 

 

From: Andreas Dilger 
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:25 AM
To: Pinkesh Valdria 
Cc: "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

 

The first thing to note is that lst reports results in binary units 

(MiB/s) while iperf reports results in decimal units (Gbps).  If you do the

conversion you get 2055.31 MiB/s = 2155 MB/s.

 

The other thing to check is the CPU usage. For TCP the CPU usage can

be high. You should try RoCE+o2iblnd instead. 

 

Cheers, Andreas


On Nov 26, 2019, at 21:26, Pinkesh Valdria  wrote:

Hello All, 

 

I created a new Lustre cluster on CentOS7.6 and I am running 
lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh to measure throughput on the network.  The nodes are 
connected to each other using 25Gbps ethernet, so theoretical max is 25 Gbps * 
125 = 3125 MB/s.Using iperf3,  I get 22Gbps (2750 MB/s) between the nodes.

 

 

[root@lustre-client-2 ~]# for c in 1 2 4 8 12 16 20 24 ;  do echo $c ; 
ST=lst-output-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H:%M:%S)  CN=$c  SZ=1M  TM=30 BRW=write 
CKSUM=simple LFROM="10.0.3.7@tcp1" LTO="10.0.3.6@tcp1" 
/root/lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh; done ;

 

When I run lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh (from Lustre wiki) between 2 nodes,  I get 
a max of  2055.31  MiB/s,  Is that expected at the Lnet level?  Or can I 
further tune the network and OS kernel (tuning I applied are below) to get 
better throughput?

 

 

 

Result Snippet from lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh

 

[LNet Rates of lfrom]

[R] Avg: 4112 RPC/s Min: 4112 RPC/s Max: 4112 RPC/s

[W] Avg: 4112 RPC/s Min: 4112 RPC/s Max: 4112 RPC/s

[LNet Bandwidth of lfrom]

[R] Avg: 0.31 MiB/s Min: 0.31 MiB/s Max: 0.31 MiB/s

[W] Avg: 2055.30  MiB/s Min: 2055.30  MiB/s Max: 2055.30  MiB/s

[LNet Rates of lto]

[R] Avg: 4136 RPC/s Min: 4136 RPC/s Max: 4136 RPC/s

[W] Avg: 4136 RPC/s Min: 4136 RPC/s Max: 4136 RPC/s

[LNet Bandwidth of lto]

[R] Avg: 2055.31  MiB/s Min: 2055.31  MiB/s Max: 2055.31  MiB/s

[W] Avg: 0.32 MiB/s Min: 0.32 MiB/s Max: 0.32 MiB/s

 

 

Tuning applied: 

Ethernet NICs: 

ip link set dev ens3 mtu 9000 

ethtool -G ens3 rx 2047 tx 2047 rx-jumbo 8191

 

 

less /etc/sysctl.conf

net.core.wmem_max=16777216

net.core.rmem_max=16777216

net.core.wmem_default=16777216

net.core.rmem_default=16777216

net.core.optmem_max=16777216

net.core.netdev_max_backlog=27000

kernel.sysrq=1

kernel.shmmax=18446744073692774399

net.core.somaxconn=8192

net.ipv4.tcp_adv_win_scale=2

net.ipv4.tcp_low_latency=1

net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 212992 87380 16777216

net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 1

net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 1

net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1

net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 212992 65536 16777216

vm.min_free_kbytes = 65536

net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = cubic

net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0

net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = htcp

net.ipv4.tcp_no_metrics_save = 0

 

 

 

echo "#

# tuned configuration

#

[main]

summary=Broadly applicable tuning that provides excellent performance across a 
variety of common server workloads

 

[disk]

devices=!dm-*, !sda1, !sda2, !sda3

readahead=>4096

 

[cpu]

force_latency=1

governor=performance

energy_perf_bias=performance

min_perf_pct=100

[vm]

transparent_huge_pages=never

[sysctl]

kernel.sched_min_granularity_ns = 1000

kernel.sched_wakeup_granularity_ns = 1500

vm.dirty_ratio = 30

vm.dirty_background_ratio = 10

vm.swappiness=30

" > lustre-performance/tuned.conf

 

tuned-adm profile lustre-performance

 

 

Thanks,

Pinkesh Valdria

 

___
lustre-discuss mailing

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

2019-12-04 Thread Jongwoo Han

Have you tried MTU >= 9000 bytes (AKA jumbo frame) on the 25G ethernet and
the switch?
If it is set to 1500 bytes, ethernet + IP + TCP frame headers take quite
amount of packet, reducing available bandwidth for data.

Jongwoo Han

2019년 11월 28일 (목) 오전 3:44, Pinkesh Valdria 님이
작성:

> Thanks Andreas for your response.
>
>
>
> I ran anotherLnet Self test with 48 concurrent processes, since the nodes
> have 52 physical cores and I was able to achieve same throughput (2052.71
> MiB/s = 2152 MB/s).
>
>
>
> Is it expected to lose almost 600 MB/s (2750-2150= ) due to overheads on
> ethernet with Lnet?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pinkesh Valdria
>
> Oracle Cloud Infrastructure
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andreas Dilger 
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:25 AM
> *To: *Pinkesh Valdria 
> *Cc: *"lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" 
> *Subject: *Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test
>
>
>
> The first thing to note is that lst reports results in binary units
>
> (MiB/s) while iperf reports results in decimal units (Gbps).  If you do the
>
> conversion you get 2055.31 MiB/s = 2155 MB/s.
>
>
>
> The other thing to check is the CPU usage. For TCP the CPU usage can
>
> be high. You should try RoCE+o2iblnd instead.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 21:26, Pinkesh Valdria 
> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I created a new Lustre cluster on CentOS7.6 and I am running
> lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh to measure throughput on the network.  The nodes
> are connected to each other using 25Gbps ethernet, so theoretical max is 25
> Gbps * 125 = 3125 MB/s.Using iperf3,  I get 22Gbps (2750 MB/s) between
> the nodes.
>
>
>
>
>
> [root@lustre-client-2 ~]# for c in 1 2 4 8 12 16 20 24 ;  do echo $c ;
> ST=lst-output-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H:%M:%S)  CN=$c  SZ=1M  TM=30 BRW=write
> CKSUM=simple LFROM="10.0.3.7@tcp1" LTO="10.0.3.6@tcp1"
> /root/lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh; done ;
>
>
>
> When I run lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh (from Lustre wiki
> )
> between 2 nodes,  I get a max of  2055.31  MiB/s,  Is that expected at the
> Lnet level?  Or can I further tune the network and OS kernel (tuning I
> applied are below) to get better throughput?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Result Snippet from lnet_selftest_wrapper.sh*
>
>
>
> [LNet Rates of lfrom]
>
> [R] Avg: 4112 RPC/s Min: 4112 RPC/s Max: 4112 RPC/s
>
> [W] Avg: 4112 RPC/s Min: 4112 RPC/s Max: 4112 RPC/s
>
> [LNet Bandwidth of lfrom]
>
> [R] Avg: 0.31 MiB/s Min: 0.31 MiB/s Max: 0.31 MiB/s
>
> [W] Avg: 2055.30  MiB/s Min: 2055.30  MiB/s Max: 2055.30  MiB/s
>
> [LNet Rates of lto]
>
> [R] Avg: 4136 RPC/s Min: 4136 RPC/s Max: 4136 RPC/s
>
> [W] Avg: 4136 RPC/s Min: 4136 RPC/s Max: 4136 RPC/s
>
> [LNet Bandwidth of lto]
>
> [R] Avg: 2055.31  MiB/s Min: 2055.31  MiB/s Max: 2055.31  MiB/s
>
> [W] Avg: 0.32 MiB/s Min: 0.32 MiB/s Max: 0.32 MiB/s
>
>
>
>
>
> *Tuning applied: *
>
> *Ethernet NICs: *
>
> ip link set dev ens3 mtu 9000
>
> ethtool -G ens3 rx 2047 tx 2047 rx-jumbo 8191
>
>
>
>
>
> *less /etc/sysctl.conf*
>
> net.core.wmem_max=16777216
>
> net.core.rmem_max=16777216
>
> net.core.wmem_default=16777216
>
> net.core.rmem_default=16777216
>
> net.core.optmem_max=16777216
>
> net.core.netdev_max_backlog=27000
>
> kernel.sysrq=1
>
> kernel.shmmax=18446744073692774399
>
> net.core.somaxconn=8192
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_adv_win_scale=2
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_low_latency=1
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 212992 87380 16777216
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 1
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 1
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 212992 65536 16777216
>
> vm.min_free_kbytes = 65536
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = cubic
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = htcp
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_no_metrics_save = 0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> echo "#
>
> *# tuned configuration*
>
> *#*
>
> [main]
>
> summary=Broadly applicable tuning that provides excellent performance
> across a variety of common server workloads
>
>
>
> [disk]
>
> devices=!dm-*, !sda1, !sda2, !sda3
>
> readahead=>4096
>
>
>
> [cpu]
>
> force_latency=1
>
> governor=performance
>
> energy_perf_bias=performance
>
> min_perf_pct=100
>
> [vm]
>
> transparent_huge_pages=never
>
> [sysctl]
>
> kernel.sched_min_granularity_ns = 1000
>
> kernel.sched_wakeup_granularity_ns = 1500
>
> vm.dirty_ratio = 30
>
> vm.dirty_background_ratio = 10
>
> vm.swappiness=30
>
> " > lustre-performance/tuned.conf
>
>
>
> tuned-adm profile lustre-performance
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pinkesh Valdria
>
>
>
> ___
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>

[lustre-discuss] MDT ashift and DoM on ZFS

2019-12-04 Thread Hans Henrik Happe

Hi,

It seems that it still saves a lot of space to use ashift=9 on ZFS MDTs.
However, for DoM one would want the performance of ashift=12 for SSDs.

What is your thoughts?

Thanks,
Hans Henrik
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

Re: [lustre-discuss] Lnet Self Test

[lustre-discuss] MDT ashift and DoM on ZFS

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information