On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkickt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Yaniv Kaul <yk...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul <yk...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkickt...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For a first idea I use: >>>> >>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1GB count=1 >>>> >>> >>> This is an incorrect way to test performance, for various reasons: >>> 1. You are not using oflag=direct , thus not using DirectIO, but using >>> cache. >>> 2. It's unrealistic - it is very uncommon to write large blocks of zeros >>> (sometimes during FS creation or wiping). Certainly not 1GB >>> 3. It is a single thread of IO - again, unrealistic for VM's IO. >>> >>> I forgot to mention that I include oflag=direct in my tests. I agree > though that dd is not the correct way to test, hence I mentioned I just use > it to get a first feel. More tests are done within the VM benchmarking its > disk IO (with tools like IOmeter). > > I suggest using fio and such. See https://github.com/pcuzner/fio-tools >>> for example. >>> >> Do you have any recommended config file to use for VM workload? > Desktops and Servers VMs behave quite differently, so not really. But the 70/30 job is typically a good baseline. > > >>> >>>> >>>> When testing on the gluster mount point using above command I hardly >>>> get 10MB/s. (On the same time the network traffic hardly reaches 100Mbit). >>>> >>>> When testing our of the gluster (for example at /root) I get 600 - >>>> 700MB/s. >>>> >>> >>> That's very fast - from 4 disks doing RAID5? Impressive (unless you use >>> caching!). Are those HDDs or SSDs/NVMe? >>> >>> >> These are SAS disks. But there is also a RAID controller with 1GB cache. > > >>>> When I mount the gluster volume with NFS and test on it I get 90 - 100 >>>> MB/s, (almost 10x from gluster results) which is the max I can get >>>> considering I have only 1 Gbit network for the storage. >>>> >>>> Also, when using glusterfs the general VM performance is very poor and >>>> disk write benchmarks show that is it at least 4 times slower then when the >>>> VM is hosted on the same data store when NFS mounted. >>>> >>>> I don't know why I hitting such a significant performance penalty, and >>>> every possible tweak that I was able to find out there did not make any >>>> difference on the performance. >>>> >>>> The hardware I am using is pretty decent for the purposes intended: >>>> 3 nodes, each node having with 32 MB of RAM, 16 physical CPU cores, 2 >>>> TB of storage in RAID5 (4 disks), of which 1.5 TB are sliced for the data >>>> store of ovirt where VMs are stored. >>>> >>> >> I forgot to ask why are you using RAID 5 with 4 disks and not RAID 10? >> Same usable capacity, higher performance, same protection and faster >> recovery, I believe. >> > Correction: there are 5 disks of 600GB each. The main reason going with > RAID 5 was the capacity. With RAID 10 I can use only 4 of them and get only > 1.1 TB usable, with RAID 5 I get 2.2 TB usable. I agree going with RAID 10 > (+ one additional drive to go with 6 drives) would be better but this is > what I have now. > > Y. >> >> >>> You have not mentioned your NIC speeds. Please ensure all work well, >>> with 10g. >>> Is the network dedicated for Gluster traffic? How are they connected? >>> >>> >> I have mentioned that I have 1 Gbit dedicated for the storage. A > different network is used for this and a dedicated 1Gbit switch. The > throughput has been confirmed between all nodes with iperf. > Oh.... With 1Gb, you can't get more than 100+MBps... > I know 10Gbit would be better, but when using native gluster at ovirt the > network pipe was hardly reaching 100Mbps thus the bottleneck was gluster > and not the network. If I can saturate 1Gbit and I still have performance > issues then I may think to go with 10Gbit. With NFS on top gluster I see > traffic reaching 800Mbit when testing with dd which is much better. > Agreed. Do you see the bottleneck elsewhere? CPU? > > >>>> The gluster configuration is the following: >>>> >>> >>> Which version of Gluster are you using? >>> >>> >> The version is 3.8.12 > I think it's a very old release (near end of life?). I warmly suggest 3.10.x or 3.12. There are performance improvements (AFAIR) in both. Y. > >>>> Volume Name: vms >>>> Type: Replicate >>>> Volume ID: 4513340d-7919-498b-bfe0-d836b5cea40b >>>> Status: Started >>>> Snapshot Count: 0 >>>> Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 >>>> Transport-type: tcp >>>> Bricks: >>>> Brick1: gluster0:/gluster/vms/brick >>>> Brick2: gluster1:/gluster/vms/brick >>>> Brick3: gluster2:/gluster/vms/brick (arbiter) >>>> Options Reconfigured: >>>> nfs.export-volumes: on >>>> nfs.disable: off >>>> performance.readdir-ahead: on >>>> transport.address-family: inet >>>> performance.quick-read: off >>>> performance.read-ahead: off >>>> performance.io-cache: off >>>> performance.stat-prefetch: on >>>> >>> >>> I think this should be off. >>> >>> >>>> performance.low-prio-threads: 32 >>>> network.remote-dio: off >>>> >>> >>> I think this should be enabled. >>> >>> >>>> cluster.eager-lock: off >>>> cluster.quorum-type: auto >>>> cluster.server-quorum-type: server >>>> cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full >>>> cluster.locking-scheme: granular >>>> cluster.shd-max-threads: 8 >>>> cluster.shd-wait-qlength: 10000 >>>> features.shard: on >>>> user.cifs: off >>>> storage.owner-uid: 36 >>>> storage.owner-gid: 36 >>>> network.ping-timeout: 30 >>>> performance.strict-o-direct: on >>>> cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable >>>> features.shard-block-size: 64MB >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure if this should not be 512MB. I don't remember the last >>> resolution on this. >>> Y. >>> >>> >>>> performance.client-io-threads: on >>>> client.event-threads: 4 >>>> server.event-threads: 4 >>>> performance.write-behind-window-size: 4MB >>>> performance.cache-size: 1GB >>>> >>>> I have been playing with all above with very little difference on > performance I was getting. > > In case I can provide any other details let me know. >>>> >>> >>> What is your tuned profile? >>> >>> >> the tuned profile is virtual-host > > At the moment I already switched to gluster based NFS but I have a similar >>>> setup with 2 nodes where the data store is mounted through gluster (and >>>> again relatively good hardware) where I might check any tweaks or >>>> improvements on this setup. >>>> >>>> Thanx >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Yaniv Kaul <yk...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkickt...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've playing with ovirt self hosted engine setup and I even use it to >>>>>> production for several VM. The setup I have is 3 server with gluster >>>>>> storage in replica 2+1 (1 arbiter). >>>>>> The data storage domain where VMs are stored is mounted with gluster >>>>>> through ovirt. The performance I get for the VMs is very low and I was >>>>>> thinking to switch and mount the same storage through NFS instead of >>>>>> glusterfs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how it'll improve performance. >>>>> I suggest you share the gluster configuration (as well as the storage >>>>> HW) so we can understand why the performance is low. >>>>> Y. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The only think I am hesitant is how can I ensure high availability of >>>>>> the storage when I loose one server? I was thinking to have at /etc/hosts >>>>>> sth like below: >>>>>> >>>>>> 10.100.100.1 nfsmount >>>>>> 10.100.100.2 nfsmount >>>>>> 10.100.100.3 nfsmount >>>>>> >>>>>> then use nfsmount as the server name when adding this domain through >>>>>> ovirt GUI. >>>>>> Are there any other more elegant solutions? What do you do for such >>>>>> cases? >>>>>> Note: gluster has the back-vol-file option which provides a lean way >>>>>> to have redundancy on the mount point and I am using this when mounting >>>>>> with glusterfs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanx >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Users mailing list >>>>>> Users@ovirt.org >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
