Hi Sebastien,
here my first results with crucial m550 (I'll send result with intel s3500
later):
- 3 nodes
- dell r620 without expander backplane
- sas controller : lsi LSI 9207 (no hardware raid or cache)
- 2 x E5-2603v2 1.8GHz (4cores)
- 32GB ram
- network : 2xgigabit link lacp + 2xgigabit lacp for cluster replication.
-os : debian wheezy, with kernel 3.10
os + ceph mon : 2x intel s3500 100gb linux soft raid
osd : crucial m550 (1TB).
3mon in the ceph cluster,
and 1 osd (journal and datas on same disk)
ceph.conf
---------
debug_lockdep = 0/0
debug_context = 0/0
debug_crush = 0/0
debug_buffer = 0/0
debug_timer = 0/0
debug_filer = 0/0
debug_objecter = 0/0
debug_rados = 0/0
debug_rbd = 0/0
debug_journaler = 0/0
debug_objectcatcher = 0/0
debug_client = 0/0
debug_osd = 0/0
debug_optracker = 0/0
debug_objclass = 0/0
debug_filestore = 0/0
debug_journal = 0/0
debug_ms = 0/0
debug_monc = 0/0
debug_tp = 0/0
debug_auth = 0/0
debug_finisher = 0/0
debug_heartbeatmap = 0/0
debug_perfcounter = 0/0
debug_asok = 0/0
debug_throttle = 0/0
debug_mon = 0/0
debug_paxos = 0/0
debug_rgw = 0/0
osd_op_threads = 5
filestore_op_threads = 4
ms_nocrc = true
cephx sign messages = false
cephx require signatures = false
ms_dispatch_throttle_bytes = 0
#0.85
throttler_perf_counter = false
filestore_fd_cache_size = 64
filestore_fd_cache_shards = 32
osd_op_num_threads_per_shard = 1
osd_op_num_shards = 25
osd_enable_op_tracker = true
Fio disk 4K benchmark
------------------
rand read 4k : fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randread --bs=4k
--iodepth=32 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=abc --ioengine=aio
bw=271755KB/s, iops=67938
rand write 4k : fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k
--iodepth=32 --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=abc --ioengine=aio
bw=228293KB/s, iops=57073
fio osd benchmark (through librbd)
----------------------------------
[global]
ioengine=rbd
clientname=admin
pool=test
rbdname=test
invalidate=0 # mandatory
rw=randwrite
rw=randread
bs=4k
direct=1
numjobs=4
group_reporting=1
[rbd_iodepth32]
iodepth=32
FIREFLY RESULTS
----------------
fio randwrite : bw=5009.6KB/s, iops=1252
fio randread: bw=37820KB/s, iops=9455
O.85 RESULTS
------------
fio randwrite : bw=11658KB/s, iops=2914
fio randread : bw=38642KB/s, iops=9660
0.85 + osd_enable_op_tracker=false
-----------------------------------
fio randwrite : bw=11630KB/s, iops=2907
fio randread : bw=80606KB/s, iops=20151, (cpu 100% - GREAT !)
So, for read, seem that osd_enable_op_tracker is the bottleneck.
Now for write, I really don't understand why it's so low.
I have done some iostat:
FIO directly on /dev/sdb
bw=228293KB/s, iops=57073
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 63613,00 0,00 254452,00 8,00
31,24 0,49 0,00 0,49 0,02 100,00
FIO directly on osd through librbd
bw=11658KB/s, iops=2914
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
sdb 0,00 355,00 0,00 5225,00 0,00 29678,00 11,36
57,63 11,03 0,00 11,03 0,19 99,70
(I don't understand what exactly is %util, 100% in the 2 cases, because 10x
slower with ceph)
It could be a dsync problem, result seem pretty poor
# dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdb bs=4k count=65536 oflag=direct
65536+0 enregistrements lus
65536+0 enregistrements écrits
268435456 octets (268 MB) copiés, 2,77433 s, 96,8 MB/s
# dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdb bs=4k count=65536 oflag=dsync,direct
^C17228+0 enregistrements lus
17228+0 enregistrements écrits
70565888 octets (71 MB) copiés, 70,4098 s, 1,0 MB/s
I'll do tests with intel s3500 tomorrow to compare
----- Mail original -----
De: "Sebastien Han" <sebastien....@enovance.com>
À: "Warren Wang" <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Envoyé: Lundi 8 Septembre 2014 22:58:25
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K
IOPS
They definitely are Warren!
Thanks for bringing this here :).
On 05 Sep 2014, at 23:02, Wang, Warren <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> +1 to what Cedric said.
>
> Anything more than a few minutes of heavy sustained writes tended to get our
> solid state devices into a state where garbage collection could not keep up.
> Originally we used small SSDs and did not overprovision the journals by much.
> Manufacturers publish their SSD stats, and then in very small font, state
> that the attained IOPS are with empty drives, and the tests are only run for
> very short amounts of time. Even if the drives are new, it's a good idea to
> perform an hdparm secure erase on them (so that the SSD knows that the blocks
> are truly unused), and then overprovision them. You'll know if you have a
> problem by watching for utilization and wait data on the journals.
>
> One of the other interesting performance issues is that the Intel 10Gbe NICs
> + default kernel that we typically use max out around 1million packets/sec.
> It's worth tracking this metric to if you are close.
>
> I know these aren't necessarily relevant to the test parameters you gave
> below, but they're worth keeping in mind.
>
> --
> Warren Wang
> Comcast Cloud (OpenStack)
>
>
> From: Cedric Lemarchand <ced...@yipikai.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM
> To: "ceph-users@lists.ceph.com" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K
> IOPS
>
>
> Le 03/09/2014 22:11, Sebastien Han a écrit :
>> Hi Warren,
>>
>> What do mean exactly by secure erase? At the firmware level with constructor
>> softwares?
>> SSDs were pretty new so I don’t we hit that sort of things. I believe that
>> only aged SSDs have this behaviour but I might be wrong.
>>
> Sorry I forgot to reply to the real question ;-)
> So yes it only plays after some times, for your case, if the SSD still
> delivers write IOPS specified by the manufacturer, it will doesn't help in
> any ways.
>
> But it seems this practice is nowadays increasingly used.
>
> Cheers
>> On 02 Sep 2014, at 18:23, Wang, Warren <warren_w...@cable.comcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Something I didn't see in the thread so far, did you secure erase the SSDs
>>> before they got used? I assume these were probably repurposed for this
>>> test. We have seen some pretty significant garbage collection issue on
>>> various SSD and other forms of solid state storage to the point where we
>>> are overprovisioning pretty much every solid state device now. By as much
>>> as 50% to handle sustained write operations. Especially important for the
>>> journals, as we've found.
>>>
>>> Maybe not an issue on the short fio run below, but certainly evident on
>>> longer runs or lots of historical data on the drives. The max transaction
>>> time looks pretty good for your test. Something to consider though.
>>>
>>> Warren
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ceph-users [
>>> mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com
>>> ] On Behalf Of Sebastien Han
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:12 PM
>>> To: ceph-users
>>> Cc: Mark Nelson
>>> Subject: [ceph-users] [Single OSD performance on SSD] Can't go over 3, 2K
>>> IOPS
>>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> It has been a while since the last thread performance related on the ML :p
>>> I've been running some experiment to see how much I can get from an SSD on
>>> a Ceph cluster.
>>> To achieve that I did something pretty simple:
>>>
>>> * Debian wheezy 7.6
>>> * kernel from debian 3.14-0.bpo.2-amd64
>>> * 1 cluster, 3 mons (i'd like to keep this realistic since in a real
>>> deployment i'll use 3)
>>> * 1 OSD backed by an SSD (journal and osd data on the same device)
>>> * 1 replica count of 1
>>> * partitions are perfectly aligned
>>> * io scheduler is set to noon but deadline was showing the same results
>>> * no updatedb running
>>>
>>> About the box:
>>>
>>> * 32GB of RAM
>>> * 12 cores with HT @ 2,4 GHz
>>> * WB cache is enabled on the controller
>>> * 10Gbps network (doesn't help here)
>>>
>>> The SSD is a 200G Intel DC S3700 and is capable of delivering around 29K
>>> iops with random 4k writes (my fio results) As a benchmark tool I used fio
>>> with the rbd engine (thanks deutsche telekom guys!).
>>>
>>> O_DIECT and D_SYNC don't seem to be a problem for the SSD:
>>>
>>> # dd if=/dev/urandom of=rand.file bs=4k count=65536
>>> 65536+0 records in
>>> 65536+0 records out
>>> 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 29.5477 s, 9.1 MB/s
>>>
>>> # du -sh rand.file
>>> 256M rand.file
>>>
>>> # dd if=rand.file of=/dev/sdo bs=4k count=65536 oflag=dsync,direct
>>> 65536+0 records in
>>> 65536+0 records out
>>> 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.73628 s, 98.1 MB/s
>>>
>>> See my ceph.conf:
>>>
>>> [global]
>>> auth cluster required = cephx
>>> auth service required = cephx
>>> auth client required = cephx
>>> fsid = 857b8609-8c9b-499e-9161-2ea67ba51c97
>>> osd pool default pg num = 4096
>>> osd pool default pgp num = 4096
>>> osd pool default size = 2
>>> osd crush chooseleaf type = 0
>>>
>>> debug lockdep = 0/0
>>> debug context = 0/0
>>> debug crush = 0/0
>>> debug buffer = 0/0
>>> debug timer = 0/0
>>> debug journaler = 0/0
>>> debug osd = 0/0
>>> debug optracker = 0/0
>>> debug objclass = 0/0
>>> debug filestore = 0/0
>>> debug journal = 0/0
>>> debug ms = 0/0
>>> debug monc = 0/0
>>> debug tp = 0/0
>>> debug auth = 0/0
>>> debug finisher = 0/0
>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0
>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0
>>> debug asok = 0/0
>>> debug throttle = 0/0
>>>
>>> [mon]
>>> mon osd down out interval = 600
>>> mon osd min down reporters = 13
>>> [mon.ceph-01]
>>> host = ceph-01
>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.171
>>> [mon.ceph-02]
>>> host = ceph-02
>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.172
>>> [mon.ceph-03]
>>> host = ceph-03
>>> mon addr = 172.20.20.173
>>>
>>> debug lockdep = 0/0
>>> debug context = 0/0
>>> debug crush = 0/0
>>> debug buffer = 0/0
>>> debug timer = 0/0
>>> debug journaler = 0/0
>>> debug osd = 0/0
>>> debug optracker = 0/0
>>> debug objclass = 0/0
>>> debug filestore = 0/0
>>> debug journal = 0/0
>>> debug ms = 0/0
>>> debug monc = 0/0
>>> debug tp = 0/0
>>> debug auth = 0/0
>>> debug finisher = 0/0
>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0
>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0
>>> debug asok = 0/0
>>> debug throttle = 0/0
>>>
>>> [osd]
>>> osd mkfs type = xfs
>>> osd mkfs options xfs = -f -i size=2048
>>> osd mount options xfs = rw,noatime,logbsize=256k,delaylog
>>> osd journal size = 20480
>>> cluster_network = 172.20.20.0/24
>>> public_network = 172.20.20.0/24
>>> osd mon heartbeat interval = 30
>>> # Performance tuning
>>> filestore merge threshold = 40
>>> filestore split multiple = 8
>>> osd op threads = 8
>>> # Recovery tuning
>>> osd recovery max active = 1
>>> osd max backfills = 1
>>> osd recovery op priority = 1
>>>
>>>
>>> debug lockdep = 0/0
>>> debug context = 0/0
>>> debug crush = 0/0
>>> debug buffer = 0/0
>>> debug timer = 0/0
>>> debug journaler = 0/0
>>> debug osd = 0/0
>>> debug optracker = 0/0
>>> debug objclass = 0/0
>>> debug filestore = 0/0
>>> debug journal = 0/0
>>> debug ms = 0/0
>>> debug monc = 0/0
>>> debug tp = 0/0
>>> debug auth = 0/0
>>> debug finisher = 0/0
>>> debug heartbeatmap = 0/0
>>> debug perfcounter = 0/0
>>> debug asok = 0/0
>>> debug throttle = 0/0
>>>
>>> Disabling all debugging made me win 200/300 more IOPS.
>>>
>>> See my fio template:
>>>
>>> [global]
>>> #logging
>>> #write_iops_log=write_iops_log
>>> #write_bw_log=write_bw_log
>>> #write_lat_log=write_lat_lo
>>>
>>> time_based
>>> runtime=60
>>>
>>> ioengine=rbd
>>> clientname=admin
>>> pool=test
>>> rbdname=fio
>>> invalidate=0 # mandatory
>>> #rw=randwrite
>>> rw=write
>>> bs=4k
>>> #bs=32m
>>> size=5G
>>> group_reporting
>>>
>>> [rbd_iodepth32]
>>> iodepth=32
>>> direct=1
>>>
>>> See my rio output:
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd,
>>> iodepth=32 fio-2.1.11-14-gb74e Starting 1 process rbd engine: RBD version:
>>> 0.1.8
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W(1)] [100.0% done] [0KB/12876KB/0KB /s] [0/3219/0 iops]
>>> [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=32116: Thu Aug 28 00:28:26
>>> 2014
>>> write: io=771448KB, bw=12855KB/s, iops=3213, runt= 60010msec
>>> slat (usec): min=42, max=1578, avg=66.50, stdev=16.96
>>> clat (msec): min=1, max=28, avg= 9.85, stdev= 1.48
>>> lat (msec): min=1, max=28, avg= 9.92, stdev= 1.47
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 6368], 5.00th=[ 8256], 10.00th=[ 8640], 20.00th=[ 9152],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 9408], 40.00th=[ 9664], 50.00th=[ 9792], 60.00th=[10048],
>>> | 70.00th=[10176], 80.00th=[10560], 90.00th=[10944], 95.00th=[11456],
>>> | 99.00th=[13120], 99.50th=[16768], 99.90th=[25984], 99.95th=[27008],
>>> | 99.99th=[28032]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=11864, max=13808, per=100.00%, avg=12864.36, stdev=407.35
>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.54%, 10=59.79%, 20=39.24%, 50=0.41%
>>> cpu : usr=19.15%, sys=4.69%, ctx=326309, majf=0, minf=426088
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=33.9%, 32=66.1%, >=64=0.0%
>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=99.6%, 8=0.4%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=192862/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=771448KB, aggrb=12855KB/s, minb=12855KB/s, maxb=12855KB/s,
>>> mint=60010msec, maxt=60010msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> dm-1: ios=0/49, merge=0/0, ticks=0/12, in_queue=12, util=0.01%,
>>> aggrios=0/22, aggrmerge=0/27, aggrticks=0/12, aggrin_queue=12,
>>> aggrutil=0.01%
>>> sda: ios=0/22, merge=0/27, ticks=0/12, in_queue=12, util=0.01%
>>>
>>> I tried to tweak several parameters like:
>>>
>>> filestore_wbthrottle_xfs_ios_start_flusher = 10000
>>> filestore_wbthrottle_xfs_ios_hard_limit = 10000
>>> filestore_wbthrottle_btrfs_ios_start_flusher = 10000
>>> filestore_wbthrottle_btrfs_ios_hard_limit = 10000 filestore queue max ops =
>>> 2000
>>>
>>> But didn't any improvement.
>>>
>>> Then I tried other things:
>>>
>>> * Increasing the io_depth up to 256 or 512 gave me between 50 to 100 more
>>> IOPS but it's not a realistic workload anymore and not that significant.
>>> * adding another SSD for the journal, still getting 3,2K IOPS
>>> * I tried with rbd bench and I also got 3K IOPS
>>> * I ran the test on a client machine and then locally on the server, still
>>> getting 3,2K IOPS
>>> * put the journal in memory, still getting 3,2K IOPS
>>> * with 2 clients running the test in parallel I got a total of 3,6K IOPS
>>> but I don't seem to be able to go over
>>> * I tried is to add another OSD to that SSD, so I had 2 OSD and 2 journals
>>> on 1 SSD, got 4,5K IOPS YAY!
>>>
>>> Given the results of the last time it seems that something is limiting the
>>> number of IOPS per OSD process.
>>>
>>> Running the test on a client or locally didn't show any difference.
>>> So it looks to me that there is some contention within Ceph that might
>>> cause this.
>>>
>>> I also ran perf and looked at the output, everything looks decent, but
>>> someone might want to have a look at it :).
>>>
>>> We have been able to reproduce this on 3 distinct platforms with some
>>> deviations (because of the hardware) but the behaviour is the same.
>>> Any thoughts will be highly appreciated, only getting 3,2k out of an 29K
>>> IOPS SSD is a bit frustrating :).
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>> ----
>>> Sébastien Han
>>> Cloud Architect
>>>
>>> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood."
>>>
>>> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72
>>> Mail:
>>> sebastien....@enovance.com
>>>
>>> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris Web :
>>> www.enovance.com
>>> - Twitter : @enovance
>>>
>>>
>> Cheers.
>> ––––
>> Sébastien Han
>> Cloud Architect
>>
>> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood."
>>
>> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72
>> Mail:
>> sebastien....@enovance.com
>>
>> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris
>> Web :
>> www.enovance.com
>> - Twitter : @enovance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>>
>> ceph-us...@lists.ceph.comhttp://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>
> --
> Cédric
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Cheers.
––––
Sébastien Han
Cloud Architect
"Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood."
Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72
Mail: sebastien....@enovance.com
Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris
Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
