No other FIO command, that is OK, direct=1, engine=libaio is the critical ones, I use very similar setup, except that i prefer to do pure READ and later pure WRITE, dont like these interleaved settings :) Also, the critical thing is not the IOPS alone but also LATENCY (completion latency on IO) - make sure to check those.
Those 250.000 were combined, so my bad I did not read it correctly, but it makes it possible for sure to reach that, if you write to 6x35K IOPS that is still more (theoretically) then what you get - so you get under the spec (137K vs almost 200K for writes), which sounds realistic and OK I guess. And yes, the volume size should be more than RAM in cases when RAM is used for any kind of buffering/caching, but again I have no idea how this works with scaleIO - with direct=1 you avoid writing to VM's/HOST's RAM, just write directly to storage over network, that is OK. If you do any other scaleIO benchmarks or have other results later, I'm very interested to see it, since I never played with ScaleIO :) Here is one of the articles (if you can trust it...) showing some CEPH vs ScaleIO differences http://cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/killing-the-storage-unicorn-purpose-built-scaleio-spanks-multi-purpose-ceph-on-performance/ Not meant to start a war on better one :), but CEPH definitively sucks on random IO, and even if you have 1000 x 100% sequential streams/writes to storage, those 1000 streams become all interleaved at the end, becoming effectively pure RANDOM IO on storage side. We have been fighting a long battle with CEPH, and it's just not worth it, for good performance VMs, simply not. It is though exceptionally nice storage for other streaming application or massive scalling... again, just my 2 cents after 3 years in production Whatever storage you choose, make sure you are not going to regret on many different factors - performances?, ACS integration good enough?, Libvirt driver stable enough (if used, i.e. for CEPH librbd) ? vendor support ? etc), since this is the core of your cloud. Believe me on this :) On 2 February 2018 at 16:22, Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> wrote: > I suppose Andrija says about the volume size, it should be much bigger than > storage host RAM. > > 2 февр. 2018 г. 10:17 ПП пользователь "S. Brüseke - proIO GmbH" < > s.brues...@proio.com> написал: > > > Hi Andrija, > > > > you are right, of course it is Samsung PM1633a. I am not sure if this is > > really only RAM. I let the fio command run for more than 30min and IOPS > did > > not drop. > > I am using 6 SSDs in my setup, each has 35.000 IOPS random write max, so > > ScaleIO can do 210.000 IOPS (read) at its best. fio shows around 140.000 > > IOPS (read) max. ScaleIO GUI shows me around 45.000 IOPS (read/write > > combined) per SSD. > > > > Do you have a different fio command I can run? > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards, > > > > Swen > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.pa...@gmail.com] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Februar 2018 16:04 > > An: users <users@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Cc: S. Brüseke - proIO GmbH <s.brues...@proio.com> > > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: KVM storage cluster > > > > From my extremely short reading on ScaleIO few months ago, they are > > utilizing RAM or similar for write caching, so basically, you write to > RAM > > or other part of ultra fast temp memory (NVME,etc) and later it is > flushed > > to durable part of storage. > > > > I assume its 1633a not 1663a ? - > > http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/ssd/enterprise-ssd/MZILS1T9HEJH/ ( > > ?) This one can barely do 35K IOPS of write per spec... and based on my > > humble experience with Samsung, you can hardly ever reach that > > specification, even with locally attached SSD and a lot of CPU > > available...(local filesystem) > > > > So it must be RAM writing for sure...so make sure you saturate the > > benchmark enough, so that the flushing process kicks in, and that the > > benchmark will make sense when you later have constant IO load on the > > cluster. > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On 2 February 2018 at 15:56, Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Swen, performance looks awesome, but still wonder where is the magic > > > here, because AFAIK Ceph is not capable to even touch the base, but > > > Red Hat bets on it... Might it be the ScaleIO doesn't wait while the > > > replication complete for IO or other hack is used? > > > > > > 2 февр. 2018 г. 3:19 ПП пользователь "S. Brüseke - proIO GmbH" < > > > s.brues...@proio.com> написал: > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is a 50/50 read-write mix. Here is the fio command I used: > > > > > > > > fio --name=test --readwrite=randrw --rwmixwrite=50 --bs=4k > > > > --invalidate=1 --group_reporting --direct=1 --filename=/dev/scinia > > > > --time_based > > > > --runtime=9999 --ioengine=libaio --numjobs=4 --iodepth=256 > > > > --norandommap > > > > --randrepeat=0 –exitall > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Result was: > > > > > > > > IO Workload 274.000 IOPS > > > > > > > > 1,0 GB/s transfer > > > > > > > > Read Bandwith 536MB/s > > > > > > > > Read IOPS 137.000 > > > > > > > > Write Bandwith 536MB/s > > > > > > > > Write IOPS 137.000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want me to run a different fio command just send it. My lab > > > > is still running. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any idea how I can mount my ScaleIO volume in KVM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] > > > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 2. Februar 2018 02:58 > > > > *An:* users@cloudstack.apache.org; S. Brüseke - proIO GmbH < > > > > s.brues...@proio.com> > > > > *Betreff:* Re: AW: KVM storage cluster > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Swen. Do you test with direct or cached ops or buffered ones? Is > > > > it a write test or rw with certain rw percenrage? Hardly believe the > > > deployment > > > > can do 250k IOs for writting with single VM test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 февр. 2018 г. 4:56 пользователь "S. Brüseke - proIO GmbH" < > > > > s.brues...@proio.com> написал: > > > > > > > > I am also testing with ScaleIO on CentOS7 with KVM. With a 3 node > > > > cluster with each node has 2x 2TB SSD (Samsung PM1663a) I get > > > > 250.000 IOPS when doing a fio test (random 4k). > > > > The only problem is that I do not know how to mount the shared > > > > volume so that KVM can use it to store vms on it. Does anyone know > how > > to do it? > > > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards, > > > > > > > > Swen > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > Von: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.pa...@gmail.com] > > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2018 22:00 > > > > An: users <users@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > Betreff: Re: KVM storage cluster > > > > > > > > > > > > a bit late, but: > > > > > > > > - for any IO heavy (medium even...) workload, try to avoid CEPH, no > > > > offence, simply it takes lot of $$$ to make CEPH perform in random > > > > IO worlds (imagine RHEL and vendors provide only refernce > > > > architecutre with SEQUNATIAL benchmark workload, not random) - not > > > > to mention a huge list > > > of > > > > bugs we hit back in the days (simply, one/single great guy handled > > > > the > > > CEPH > > > > integration for CloudStack, but otherwise not lot of help from other > > > > committers, if not mistaken, afaik...) > > > > - NFS better performance but not magic... (but most well supported, > > > > code wise, bug-less wise :) > > > > - and for top notch (cost some $$$) SolidFire is the way to go (we > > > > have tons of IO heavy customers, so this THE solution really, after > > > > living > > > with > > > > CEPH, then NFS on SSDs, etc) and provides guarantied IOPS etc... > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > On 7 January 2018 at 22:46, Grégoire Lamodière > > > > <g.lamodi...@dimsi.fr> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Vahric, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. I will have a look on it. > > > > > > > > > > Grégoire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Message d'origine -------- De : Vahric MUHTARYAN > > > > > <vah...@doruk.net.tr> Date : 07/01/2018 21:08 > > > > > (GMT+01:00) À : users@cloudstack.apache.org Objet : Re: KVM > > > > > storage cluster > > > > > > > > > > Hello Grégoire, > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you to look EMC scaleio for block based operations. It > > > > > has a free one too ! And as a block working better then Ceph ;) > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > VM > > > > > > > > > > On 7.01.2018 18:12, "Grégoire Lamodière" <g.lamodi...@dimsi.fr> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your quick reply. > > > > > > > > > > I'll have a look on Ceph and related perfs. > > > > > As you mentionned, 2 DRDB nfs servers can do the job, but if I > > > > > can avoid using 2 blades for just passing blocks to nfs, this is > > > > > even better (and maintain them as well). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing to ceph. > > > > > > > > > > Grégoire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Grégoire Lamodière > > > > > T/ + 33 6 76 27 03 31 > > > > > F/ + 33 1 75 43 89 71 > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > De : Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] > > > > > Envoyé : dimanche 7 janvier 2018 15:20 > > > > > À : users@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > Objet : Re: KVM storage cluster > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Grégoire, > > > > > You could have > > > > > - local storage if you like, so every compute node could have > > > > > own space (one lun per host) > > > > > - to have Ceph deployed on the same compute nodes (distribute > > > > > raw devices among nodes) > > > > > - to dedicate certain node as NFS server (or two servers with > > > > > DRBD) > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that shared FS is a good option, even clustered > > > > > LVM is a big pain. > > > > > > > > > > 2018-01-07 21:08 GMT+07:00 Grégoire Lamodière < > > > g.lamodi...@dimsi.fr > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Citrix changed deeply the free version of XenServer > > > > > 7.3, I am in > > > > > > the process of Pocing moving our Xen clusters to KVM on > > > > > Centos 7 > > > I > > > > > > decided to use HP blades connected to HP P2000 over mutipath > > > > > SAS links. > > > > > > > > > > > > The network part seems fine to me, not so far from what we > > > > > used > > > to > > > > do > > > > > > with Xen. > > > > > > About the storage, I am a little but confused about the > shared > > > > > > mountpoint storage option offerds by CS. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be the good option, in terms of CS, to create a > > > cluster > > > > fs > > > > > > using my SAS array ? > > > > > > I read somewhere (a Dag SlideShare I think) that GFS2 is the > > only > > > > > > clustered FS supported by CS. Is it still correct ? > > > > > > Does it mean I have to create the GFS2 cluster, make > > > > > identical > > > > mount > > > > > > conf on all host, and use it on CS as NFS ? > > > > > > I do not have to add the storage to KVM prior CS zone > creation > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for any help / information. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Grégoire Lamodière > > > > > > T/ + 33 6 76 27 03 31 > > > > > > F/ + 33 1 75 43 89 71 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > > > > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. > > > > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > > > > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Andrija Panić > > > > > > > > - proIO GmbH - > > > > Geschäftsführer: Swen Brüseke > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main > > > > > > > > USt-IdNr. DE 267 075 918 > > > > Registergericht: Frankfurt am Main - HRB 86239 > > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte > > > > Informationen. > > > > Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail > > > > irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender > > > > und vernichten Sie diese Mail. > > > > Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail > > > > sind nicht gestattet. > > > > > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. > > > > If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail > > > > in > > > > error) please notify > > > > the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. > > > > Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material > > > > in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > - proIO GmbH - > > > > Geschäftsführer: Swen Brüseke > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main > > > > > > > > USt-IdNr. DE 267 075 918 > > > > Registergericht: Frankfurt am Main - HRB 86239 > > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte > > > > Informationen. > > > > Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E- Mail > > > > irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender > > > > und vernichten Sie diese Mail. > > > > Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail > > > > sind nicht gestattet. > > > > > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. > > > > If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail > > > > in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this > > > > e-mail. > > > > Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material > > > > in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrija Panić > > > > > > - proIO GmbH - > > Geschäftsführer: Swen Brüseke > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main > > > > USt-IdNr. DE 267 075 918 > > Registergericht: Frankfurt am Main - HRB 86239 > > > > Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte > > Informationen. > > Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich > > erhalten haben, > > informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. > > Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail sind > > nicht gestattet. > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. > > If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in > > error) please notify > > the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. > > Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in > > this e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > > -- Andrija Panić
