Your performance hit can be from here. When OSD daemons tries to send a big frame, MTU misconfiguration blocks them and they must send them again with a lower size. On some switches, you have to set the global and the per-interface MTU sizes.
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 16:21, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahl...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I am not sure why, but I cannot get Jumbo Frames to work properly: > > > root@virt2:~# ping -M do -s 8972 -c 4 10.10.10.83 > PING 10.10.10.83 (10.10.10.83) 8972(9000) bytes of data. > ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1500 > ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1500 > ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1500 > > > Jumbo Frames is on, on the switch and on the NIC's: > > ens2f0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 9000 > inet 10.10.10.83 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.10.10.255 > inet6 fe80::ec4:7aff:feea:7b40 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> > ether 0c:c4:7a:ea:7b:40 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > RX packets 166440655 bytes 229547410625 (213.7 GiB) > RX errors 0 dropped 223 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 142788790 bytes 188658602086 (175.7 GiB) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > > > > root@virt2:~# ifconfig ens2f0 > ens2f0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 9000 > inet 10.10.10.82 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.10.10.255 > inet6 fe80::ec4:7aff:feea:ff2c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> > ether 0c:c4:7a:ea:ff:2c txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > RX packets 466774 bytes 385578454 (367.7 MiB) > RX errors 4 dropped 223 overruns 0 frame 3 > TX packets 594975 bytes 580053745 (553.1 MiB) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Sébastien VIGNERON > <sebastien.vigne...@criann.fr <mailto:sebastien.vigne...@criann.fr>> wrote: > 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 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=745,+avenue+de+l%27Universit%C3%A9%C2%A0+76800+Saint-Etienne+du+Rouvray+-+France&entry=gmail&source=g> > > 76800 Saint-Etienne du Rouvray - France > <https://maps.google.com/?q=745,+avenue+de+l%27Universit%C3%A9%C2%A0+76800+Saint-Etienne+du+Rouvray+-+France&entry=gmail&source=g> > > tél. +33 2 32 91 42 91 <tel:+33%202%2032%2091%2042%2091> > fax. +33 2 32 91 42 92 <tel:+33%202%2032%2091%2042%2092> > http://www.criann.fr <http://www.criann.fr/> > mailto:sebastien.vigne...@criann.fr <mailto:sebastien.vigne...@criann.fr> > support: supp...@criann.fr <mailto:supp...@criann.fr> > >> Le 20 nov. 2017 à 13:02, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahl...@gmail.com >> <mailto: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 <tel:083%200062> >> > 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> > > > > -- > Kind Regards > Rudi Ahlers > Website: http://www.rudiahlers.co.za <http://www.rudiahlers.co.za/>
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
