Hi, we've used Kernel CephFS + Kernel NFS in the past. It works reasonably well in many scenarios, especially for smaller setups. However, you absolutely must use a recent kernel, we encountered a lot of deadlocks and other random hangs and reconnect failures with kernel 4.9 in larger setups under load.
The main problem with the Kernel NFS server is that the whole concept of having an NFS server in the kernel is just bad design, especially when it's backed by Ceph (it's only in there for historical reasons). It also means that it's hard to extend and development cycles are slow. Especially features related to clustering are lacking in the kernel server. For example, Ganesha 2.7 will come with a RADOS recovery backend. Also, pass-through of CephFS delegations is a nice feature that is only possible if your NFS server and CephFS client are tightly integrated. So the future of NFS is definitely with Ganesha. Paul 2018-06-30 22:22 GMT+02:00 Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk>: > Hi Paul, > > > > Thanks for your response, is there anything you can go into more detail on > and share with the list? I’m sure it would be much appreciated by more than > just myself. > > > > I was planning on Kernel CephFS and NFS server, both seem to achieve > better performance, although stability is of greater concern. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > *From:* Paul Emmerich [mailto:paul.emmer...@croit.io] > *Sent:* 29 June 2018 17:57 > *To:* Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk> > *Cc:* ceph-users <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] CephFS+NFS For VMWare > > > > VMWare can be quite picky about NFS servers. > > Some things that you should test before deploying anything with that in > production: > > > > * failover > > * reconnects after NFS reboots or outages > > * NFS3 vs NFS4 > > * Kernel NFS (which kernel version? cephfs-fuse or cephfs-kernel?) vs NFS > Ganesha (VFS FSAL vs. Ceph FSAL) > > * Stress tests with lots of VMWare clients - we had a setup than ran fine > with 5 big VMWare hypervisors but started to get random deadlocks once we > added 5 more > > > > We are running CephFS + NFS + VMWare in production but we've encountered > *a lot* of problems until we got that stable for a few configurations. > > Be prepared to debug NFS problems at a low level with tcpdump and a > careful read of the RFC and NFS server source ;) > > > > Paul > > > > 2018-06-29 18:48 GMT+02:00 Nick Fisk <n...@fisk.me.uk>: > > This is for us peeps using Ceph with VMWare. > > > > My current favoured solution for consuming Ceph in VMWare is via RBD’s > formatted with XFS and exported via NFS to ESXi. This seems to perform > better than iSCSI+VMFS which seems to not play nicely with Ceph’s PG > contention issues particularly if working with thin provisioned VMDK’s. > > > > I’ve still been noticing some performance issues however, mainly > noticeable when doing any form of storage migrations. This is largely due > to the way vSphere transfers VM’s in 64KB IO’s at a QD of 32. vSphere does > this so Arrays with QOS can balance the IO easier than if larger IO’s were > submitted. However Ceph’s PG locking means that only one or two of these > IO’s can happen at a time, seriously lowering throughput. Typically you > won’t be able to push more than 20-25MB/s during a storage migration > > > > There is also another issue in that the IO needed for the XFS journal on > the RBD, can cause contention and effectively also means every NFS write IO > sends 2 down to Ceph. This can have an impact on latency as well. Due to > possible PG contention caused by the XFS journal updates when multiple IO’s > are in flight, you normally end up making more and more RBD’s to try and > spread the load. This normally means you end up having to do storage > migrations…..you can see where I’m getting at here. > > > > I’ve been thinking for a while that CephFS works around a lot of these > limitations. > > > > 1. It supports fancy striping, so should mean there is less per > object contention > > 2. There is no FS in the middle to maintain a journal and other > associated IO > > 3. A single large NFS mount should have none of the disadvantages > seen with a single RBD > > 4. No need to migrate VM’s about because of #3 > > 5. No need to fstrim after deleting VM’s > > 6. Potential to do away with pacemaker and use LVS to do > active/active NFS as ESXi does its own locking with files > > > > With this in mind I exported a CephFS mount via NFS and then mounted it to > an ESXi host as a test. > > > > Initial results are looking very good. I’m seeing storage migrations to > the NFS mount going at over 200MB/s, which equates to several thousand IO’s > and seems to be writing at the intended QD32. > > > > I need to do more testing to make sure everything works as intended, but > like I say, promising initial results. > > > > Further testing needs to be done to see what sort of MDS performance is > required, I would imagine that since we are mainly dealing with large > files, it might not be that critical. I also need to consider the stability > of CephFS, RBD is relatively simple and is in use by a large proportion of > the Ceph community. CephFS is a lot easier to “upset”. > > > > Nick > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > -- > > Paul Emmerich > > Looking for help with your Ceph cluster? Contact us at https://croit.io > > croit GmbH > Freseniusstr. 31h > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Freseniusstr.+31h+81247+M%C3%BCnchen&entry=gmail&source=g> > 81247 München > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Freseniusstr.+31h+81247+M%C3%BCnchen&entry=gmail&source=g> > www.croit.io > Tel: +49 89 1896585 90 > -- Paul Emmerich Looking for help with your Ceph cluster? Contact us at https://croit.io croit GmbH Freseniusstr. 31h 81247 München www.croit.io Tel: +49 89 1896585 90
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
