Couple of things to check
1. Can you create just a normal non cached pool and test performance to
rule out any funnies going on there.
2. Can you also run something like iostat during the benchmarks and see if
it looks like all your disks are getting saturated.
_____________________________________________
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On
Behalf Of Adrien Gillard
Sent: 02 December 2015 21:33
To: ceph-us...@ceph.com
Subject: [ceph-users] New cluster performance analysis
Hi everyone,
I am currently testing our new cluster and I would like some
feedback on the numbers I am getting.
For the hardware :
7 x OSD : 2 x Intel 2640v3 (8x2.6GHz), 64B RAM, 2x10Gbits LACP
for public net., 2x10Gbits LACP for cluster net., MTU 9000
1 x MON : 2 x Intel 2630L (6x2GHz), 32GB RAM and Intel DC SSD,
2x10Gbits LACP for public net., MTU 9000
2 x MON : VMs (8 cores, 8GB RAM), backed by SSD
Journals are 20GB partitions on SSD
The system is CentOS 7.1 with stock kernel
(3.10.0-229.20.1.el7.x86_64). No particular system optimizations.
Ceph is Infernalis from Ceph repository : ceph version 9.2.0
(bb2ecea240f3a1d525bcb35670cb07bd1f0ca299)
[cephadm@cph-adm-01 ~/scripts]$ ceph -s
cluster 259f65a3-d6c8-4c90-a9c2-71d4c3c55cce
health HEALTH_OK
monmap e1: 3 mons at
{clb-cph-frpar1-mon-02=x.x.x.2:6789/0,clb-cph-frpar2-mon-01=x.x.x.1:6789/0,clb-cph-frpar2-mon-03=x.x.x.3:6789/0}
election epoch 62, quorum 0,1,2
clb-cph-frpar2-mon-01,clb-cph-frpar1-mon-02,clb-cph-frpar2-mon-03
osdmap e844: 84 osds: 84 up, 84 in
flags sortbitwise
pgmap v111655: 3136 pgs, 3 pools, 3166 GB data, 19220
kobjects
8308 GB used, 297 TB / 305 TB avail
3136 active+clean
My ceph.conf :
[global]
fsid = 259f65a3-d6c8-4c90-a9c2-71d4c3c55cce
mon_initial_members = clb-cph-frpar2-mon-01,
clb-cph-frpar1-mon-02, clb-cph-frpar2-mon-03
mon_host = x.x.x.1,x.x.x.2,x.x.x.3
auth_cluster_required = cephx
auth_service_required = cephx
auth_client_required = cephx
filestore_xattr_use_omap = true
public network = 10.25.25.0/24 <http://10.25.25.0/24>
cluster network = 10.25.26.0/24 <http://10.25.26.0/24>
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]
osd journal size = 0
osd mount options xfs =
"rw,noatime,inode64,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k"
filestore min sync interval = 5
filestore max sync interval = 15
filestore queue max ops = 2048
filestore queue max bytes = 1048576000
filestore queue committing max ops = 4096
filestore queue committing max bytes = 1048576000
filestore op thread = 32
filestore journal writeahead = true
filestore merge threshold = 40
filestore split multiple = 8
journal max write bytes = 1048576000
journal max write entries = 4096
journal queue max ops = 8092
journal queue max bytes = 1048576000
osd max write size = 512
osd op threads = 16
osd disk threads = 2
osd op num threads per shard = 3
osd op num shards = 10
osd map cache size = 1024
osd max backfills = 1
osd recovery max active = 2
I have set up 2 pools : one for cache with 3x replication in
front of an EC pool. At the moment I am only interested in the cache pool, so
no promotions/flushes/evictions happen.
(I know, I am using the same set of OSD for hot and cold data,
but in my use case they should not be used at the same time.)
I am accessing the cluster via RBD volumes mapped with the
kernel module on CentOS 7.1. These volumes are formatted in XFS on the clients.
The journal SSDs seem to perform quite well according to the
results of Sebastien Han’s benchmark suggestion (they are Sandisk) :
write: io=22336MB, bw=381194KB/s, iops=95298, runt= 60001msec
(this is for numjob=10)
Here are the rados bench tests :
rados bench -p rbdcache 120 write -b 4K -t 32 --no-cleanup
Total time run: 121.410763
Total writes made: 65357
Write size: 4096
Bandwidth (MB/sec): 2.1
Stddev Bandwidth: 0.597
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 3.89
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0.00781
Average IOPS: 538
Stddev IOPS: 152
Max IOPS: 995
Min IOPS: 2
Average Latency: 0.0594
Stddev Latency: 0.18
Max latency: 2.82
Min latency: 0.00494
And the results of the fio test with the following parameters :
[global]
size=8G
runtime=300
ioengine=libaio
invalidate=1
direct=1
sync=1
fsync=1
numjobs=32
rw=randwrite
name=4k-32-1-randwrite-libaio
blocksize=4K
iodepth=1
directory=/mnt/rbd
group_reporting=1
4k-32-1-randwrite-libaio: (groupid=0, jobs=32): err= 0:
pid=20442: Wed Dec 2 21:38:30 2015
write: io=992.11MB, bw=3389.3KB/s, iops=847, runt=300011msec
slat (usec): min=5, max=4726, avg=40.32, stdev=41.28
clat (msec): min=2, max=2208, avg=19.35, stdev=74.34
lat (msec): min=2, max=2208, avg=19.39, stdev=74.34
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 3], 5.00th=[ 4], 10.00th=[ 4],
20.00th=[ 4],
| 30.00th=[ 4], 40.00th=[ 5], 50.00th=[ 5],
60.00th=[ 5],
| 70.00th=[ 6], 80.00th=[ 7], 90.00th=[ 38],
95.00th=[ 63],
| 99.00th=[ 322], 99.50th=[ 570], 99.90th=[ 1074],
99.95th=[ 1221],
| 99.99th=[ 1532]
bw (KB /s): min= 1, max= 448, per=3.64%, avg=123.48,
stdev=102.09
lat (msec) : 4=30.30%, 10=51.27%, 20=1.71%, 50=9.91%,
100=4.03%
lat (msec) : 250=1.55%, 500=0.62%, 750=0.33%, 1000=0.16%
cpu : usr=0.09%, sys=0.25%, ctx=963114, majf=0,
minf=928
IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%,
32=0.0%, >=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=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=0/w=254206/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0,
drop=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: io=992.11MB, aggrb=3389KB/s, minb=3389KB/s,
maxb=3389KB/s, mint=300011msec, maxt=300011msec
Disk stats (read/write):
rbd0: ios=0/320813, merge=0/10001, ticks=0/5670847,
in_queue=5677825, util=100.00%
And a job closer to what the actual workload would be
(blocksize=200K, numjob=16, QD=32)
200k-16-32-randwrite-libaio: (groupid=0, jobs=16): err= 0:
pid=4828: Wed Dec 2 18:58:53 2015
write: io=47305MB, bw=161367KB/s, iops=806, runt=300189msec
slat (usec): min=17, max=358430, avg=155.11, stdev=2361.49
clat (msec): min=9, max=3584, avg=613.88, stdev=168.68
lat (msec): min=10, max=3584, avg=614.04, stdev=168.66
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 375], 5.00th=[ 469], 10.00th=[ 502],
20.00th=[ 537],
| 30.00th=[ 553], 40.00th=[ 578], 50.00th=[ 594],
60.00th=[ 603],
| 70.00th=[ 627], 80.00th=[ 652], 90.00th=[ 701],
95.00th=[ 881],
| 99.00th=[ 1205], 99.50th=[ 1483], 99.90th=[ 2638],
99.95th=[ 2671],
| 99.99th=[ 2999]
bw (KB /s): min= 260, max=18181, per=6.31%, avg=10189.40,
stdev=2009.86
lat (msec) : 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%, 50=0.01%, 100=0.02%,
250=0.08%
lat (msec) : 500=9.26%, 750=83.21%, 1000=4.09%
cpu : usr=0.22%, sys=0.55%, ctx=719279, majf=0,
minf=433
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%,
32=99.8%, >=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=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%,
64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=0/w=242203/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0,
drop=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%,
depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: io=47305MB, aggrb=161367KB/s, minb=161367KB/s,
maxb=161367KB/s, mint=300189msec, maxt=300189msec
Disk stats (read/write):
rbd0: ios=1/287809, merge=0/18393, ticks=50/5887593,
in_queue=5887504, util=99.91%
The 4k block performance does not interest me so much but is
given as a reference. I am more looking for throughput, but anyway, the numbers
seem quite low.
Let's take IOPS, assuming the spinners can do 50 (4k) synced
sustained IOPS (I hope they can do more ^^), we should be around 50x84/3 = 1400
IOPS, which is far from rados bench (538) and fio (847). And surprisingly fio
numbers are greater than rados.
So I don't know wether I am missing something here or if
something is going wrong (maybe both !).
Any input would be very valuable.
Thank you,
Adrien << File: ATT00001.txt >>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
