As a jumbo frame test, can you try the following? ping -M do -s 8972 -c 4 IP_of_other_node_within_cluster_network
If you have « ping: sendto: Message too long », jumbo frames are not activated. Cordialement / Best regards, Sébastien VIGNERON CRIANN, Ingénieur / Engineer Technopôle du Madrillet 745, avenue de l'Université 76800 Saint-Etienne du Rouvray - France tél. +33 2 32 91 42 91 fax. +33 2 32 91 42 92 http://www.criann.fr mailto:sebastien.vigne...@criann.fr support: supp...@criann.fr > Le 20 nov. 2017 à 13:02, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahl...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > We're planning on installing 12X Virtual Machines with some heavy loads. > > the SSD drives are INTEL SSDSC2BA400G4 > > The SATA drives are ST8000NM0055-1RM112 > > Please explain your comment, "b) will find a lot of people here who don't > approve of it." > > I don't have access to the switches right now, but they're new so whatever > default config ships from factory would be active. Though iperf shows 10.5 > GBytes / 9.02 Gbits/sec throughput. > > What speeds would you expect? > "Though with your setup I would have expected something faster, but NOT the > theoretical 600MB/s 4 HDDs will do in sequential writes." > > > > On this, "If an OSD has no fast WAL/DB, it will drag the overall speed down. > Verify and if so fix this and re-test.": how? > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com > <mailto:ch...@gol.com>> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:38:55 +0200 Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Can someone please help me, how do I improve performance on ou CEPH cluster? > > > > The hardware in use are as follows: > > 3x SuperMicro servers with the following configuration > > 12Core Dual XEON 2.2Ghz > Faster cores is better for Ceph, IMNSHO. > Though with main storage on HDDs, this will do. > > > 128GB RAM > Overkill for Ceph but I see something else below... > > > 2x 400GB Intel DC SSD drives > Exact model please. > > > 4x 8TB Seagate 7200rpm 6Gbps SATA HDD's > One hopes that's a non SMR one. > Model please. > > > 1x SuperMicro DOM for Proxmox / Debian OS > Ah, Proxmox. > I'm personally not averse to converged, high density, multi-role clusters > myself, but you: > a) need to know what you're doing and > b) will find a lot of people here who don't approve of it. > > I've avoided DOMs so far (non-hotswapable SPOF), even though the SM ones > look good on paper with regards to endurance and IOPS. > The later being rather important for your monitors. > > > 4x Port 10Gbe NIC > > Cisco 10Gbe switch. > > > Configuration would be nice for those, LACP? > > > > > root@virt2:~# rados bench -p Data 10 write --no-cleanup > > hints = 1 > > Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size > > 4194304 for up to 10 seconds or 0 objects > > rados bench is limited tool and measuring bandwidth is in nearly all > the use cases pointless. > Latency is where it is at and testing from inside a VM is more relevant > than synthetic tests of the storage. > But it is a start. > > > Object prefix: benchmark_data_virt2_39099 > > sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg > > lat(s) > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 - > > 0 > > 1 16 85 69 275.979 276 0.185576 > > 0.204146 > > 2 16 171 155 309.966 344 0.0625409 > > 0.193558 > > 3 16 243 227 302.633 288 0.0547129 > > 0.19835 > > 4 16 330 314 313.965 348 0.0959492 > > 0.199825 > > 5 16 413 397 317.565 332 0.124908 > > 0.196191 > > 6 16 494 478 318.633 324 0.1556 > > 0.197014 > > 7 15 591 576 329.109 392 0.136305 > > 0.192192 > > 8 16 670 654 326.965 312 0.0703808 > > 0.190643 > > 9 16 757 741 329.297 348 0.165211 > > 0.192183 > > 10 16 828 812 324.764 284 0.0935803 > > 0.194041 > > Total time run: 10.120215 > > Total writes made: 829 > > Write size: 4194304 > > Object size: 4194304 > > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 327.661 > What part of this surprises you? > > With a replication of 3, you have effectively the bandwidth of your 2 SSDs > (for small writes, not the case here) and the bandwidth of your 4 HDDs > available. > Given overhead, other inefficiencies and the fact that this is not a > sequential write from the HDD perspective, 320MB/s isn't all that bad. > Though with your setup I would have expected something faster, but NOT the > theoretical 600MB/s 4 HDDs will do in sequential writes. > > > Stddev Bandwidth: 35.8664 > > Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 392 > > Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 276 > > Average IOPS: 81 > > Stddev IOPS: 8 > > Max IOPS: 98 > > Min IOPS: 69 > > Average Latency(s): 0.195191 > > Stddev Latency(s): 0.0830062 > > Max latency(s): 0.481448 > > Min latency(s): 0.0414858 > > root@virt2:~# hdparm -I /dev/sda > > > > > > > > root@virt2:~# ceph osd tree > > ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF > > -1 72.78290 root default > > -3 29.11316 host virt1 > > 1 hdd 7.27829 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 2 hdd 7.27829 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 3 hdd 7.27829 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 4 hdd 7.27829 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -5 21.83487 host virt2 > > 5 hdd 7.27829 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 6 hdd 7.27829 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 7 hdd 7.27829 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -7 21.83487 host virt3 > > 8 hdd 7.27829 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 9 hdd 7.27829 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 10 hdd 7.27829 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 0 0 osd.0 down 0 1.00000 > > > > > > root@virt2:~# ceph -s > > cluster: > > id: 278a2e9c-0578-428f-bd5b-3bb348923c27 > > health: HEALTH_OK > > > > services: > > mon: 3 daemons, quorum virt1,virt2,virt3 > > mgr: virt1(active) > > osd: 11 osds: 10 up, 10 in > > > > data: > > pools: 1 pools, 512 pgs > > objects: 6084 objects, 24105 MB > > usage: 92822 MB used, 74438 GB / 74529 GB avail > > pgs: 512 active+clean > > > > root@virt2:~# ceph -w > > cluster: > > id: 278a2e9c-0578-428f-bd5b-3bb348923c27 > > health: HEALTH_OK > > > > services: > > mon: 3 daemons, quorum virt1,virt2,virt3 > > mgr: virt1(active) > > osd: 11 osds: 10 up, 10 in > > > > data: > > pools: 1 pools, 512 pgs > > objects: 6084 objects, 24105 MB > > usage: 92822 MB used, 74438 GB / 74529 GB avail > > pgs: 512 active+clean > > > > > > 2017-11-20 12:32:08.199450 mon.virt1 [INF] mon.1 10.10.10.82:6789/0 > > <http://10.10.10.82:6789/0> > > > > > > > > The SSD drives are used as journal drives: > > > Bluestore has no journals, don't confuse it and the people you're asking > for help. > > > root@virt3:~# ceph-disk list | grep /dev/sde | grep osd > > /dev/sdb1 ceph data, active, cluster ceph, osd.8, block /dev/sdb2, > > block.db /dev/sde1 > > root@virt3:~# ceph-disk list | grep /dev/sdf | grep osd > > /dev/sdc1 ceph data, active, cluster ceph, osd.9, block /dev/sdc2, > > block.db /dev/sdf1 > > /dev/sdd1 ceph data, active, cluster ceph, osd.10, block /dev/sdd2, > > block.db /dev/sdf2 > > > > > > > > I see now /dev/sda doesn't have a journal, though it should have. Not sure > > why. > If an OSD has no fast WAL/DB, it will drag the overall speed down. > > Verify and if so fix this and re-test. > > Christian > > > This is the command I used to create it: > > > > > > pveceph createosd /dev/sda -bluestore 1 -journal_dev /dev/sde > > > > > > > -- > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > ch...@gol.com <mailto:ch...@gol.com> Rakuten Communications > > > > -- > Kind Regards > Rudi Ahlers > Website: http://www.rudiahlers.co.za <http://www.rudiahlers.co.za/> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-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
