* Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x
@ 2013-04-03 2:05 Steven Haigh
2013-04-03 2:14 ` Steven Haigh
2013-04-03 11:36 ` Felipe Franciosi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-raid
Hi all,
I'm still trying to track down the cause of disk write slowness when
passing through disks to a DomU.
I've restructured things a little and now pass the raid array (/dev/md3)
directly to the DomU. When running a xfs_fsr on the filesystem from
within the Dom0, I get the following:
# iostat -m 5
(....)
avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.11 0.00 9.23 44.64 0.21 45.81
Device: tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn
sdc 286.20 17.22 34.15 86 170
sdf 284.20 17.45 34.43 87 172
sdd 217.40 17.25 34.15 86 170
sde 211.00 17.25 34.38 86 171
md3 1095.40 69.20 67.18 346 335
This is with the RAID6 mounted on /mnt/fileshare from within the Dom0.
Speeds are about what I would expect for the task that is going on.
With no changes at all to the setup or the RAID, I attach the same RAID6
array to a DomU:
# xm block-attach zeus.vm phy:/dev/md3 xvdb w
Now run xfs_fsr from within the DomU, I look at the same output from
iostat on Dom0:
avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.34 97.31
Device: tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn
sdc 702.40 11.28 16.09 56 80
sdf 701.00 11.26 16.15 56 80
sdd 698.00 11.18 15.95 55 79
sde 700.60 11.27 16.19 56 80
md3 1641.00 30.30 29.87 151 149
I'm seeing this consistently across all methods of speed testing (dd,
bonnie++, etc).
If I remove and attach a single disk from the array and run tests on
that, I obtain full speed for the single drive. As soon as the array is
passed, the speed drops significantly (as seen above).
I have copied in the linux-raid list to this - as it seems to only
affect md arrays passed to the Xen DomU guests.
Where do we start debugging this?
--
Steven Haigh
Email: netwiz@crc.id.au
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 2:05 Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 2:14 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 11:36 ` Felipe Franciosi 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-raid On 03/04/13 13:05, Steven Haigh wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm still trying to track down the cause of disk write slowness when > passing through disks to a DomU. > > I've restructured things a little and now pass the raid array (/dev/md3) > directly to the DomU. When running a xfs_fsr on the filesystem from > within the Dom0, I get the following: > > # iostat -m 5 > (....) > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.11 0.00 9.23 44.64 0.21 45.81 > > Device: tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn > sdc 286.20 17.22 34.15 86 170 > sdf 284.20 17.45 34.43 87 172 > sdd 217.40 17.25 34.15 86 170 > sde 211.00 17.25 34.38 86 171 > md3 1095.40 69.20 67.18 346 335 > > This is with the RAID6 mounted on /mnt/fileshare from within the Dom0. > Speeds are about what I would expect for the task that is going on. > > With no changes at all to the setup or the RAID, I attach the same RAID6 > array to a DomU: > > # xm block-attach zeus.vm phy:/dev/md3 xvdb w > > Now run xfs_fsr from within the DomU, I look at the same output from > iostat on Dom0: > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.34 97.31 > > Device: tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn > sdc 702.40 11.28 16.09 56 80 > sdf 701.00 11.26 16.15 56 80 > sdd 698.00 11.18 15.95 55 79 > sde 700.60 11.27 16.19 56 80 > md3 1641.00 30.30 29.87 151 149 > > I'm seeing this consistently across all methods of speed testing (dd, > bonnie++, etc). > > If I remove and attach a single disk from the array and run tests on > that, I obtain full speed for the single drive. As soon as the array is > passed, the speed drops significantly (as seen above). > > I have copied in the linux-raid list to this - as it seems to only > affect md arrays passed to the Xen DomU guests. > > Where do we start debugging this? > Whoops - forgot to add the details of the array: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md3 : active raid6 sdd[5] sdc[4] sdf[1] sde[0] 3906766592 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 128k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] # mdadm --detail /dev/md3 /dev/md3: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Mon Apr 1 01:49:18 2013 Raid Level : raid6 Array Size : 3906766592 (3725.78 GiB 4000.53 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953383296 (1862.89 GiB 2000.26 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Wed Apr 3 13:13:45 2013 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 128K Name : xenhost.lan.crc.id.au:3 (local to host xenhost.lan.crc.id.au) UUID : 69cd7c1c:2ffc2df2:0a8afbb3:a2f32dab Events : 310 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 64 0 active sync /dev/sde 1 8 80 1 active sync /dev/sdf 5 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd 4 8 32 3 active sync /dev/sdc -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 2:05 Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 2:14 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 11:36 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 11:42 ` Steven Haigh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Steven Haigh'; +Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Based on what you said later, your raid stripe size is 128KB. When you plug /dev/md3 to your guest, you will be going through blkback/blkfront which only support 44KB per request. So can I ask what is the "task that is going on"? I mean, what is your workload and how does it look like (in terms of reads/writes, (a)sync and size)? Felipe -----Original Message----- From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of Steven Haigh Sent: 03 April 2013 03:06 To: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Xen-devel] Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x <...> # iostat -m 5 (....) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.11 0.00 9.23 44.64 0.21 45.81 Device: tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_read MB_wrtn sdc 286.20 17.22 34.15 86 170 sdf 284.20 17.45 34.43 87 172 sdd 217.40 17.25 34.15 86 170 sde 211.00 17.25 34.38 86 171 md3 1095.40 69.20 67.18 346 335 This is with the RAID6 mounted on /mnt/fileshare from within the Dom0. Speeds are about what I would expect for the task that is going on. <...> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 11:36 ` Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 11:42 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 12:29 ` Felipe Franciosi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Franciosi; +Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com On 03/04/13 22:36, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Based on what you said later, your raid stripe size is 128KB. When you plug /dev/md3 to your guest, you will be going through blkback/blkfront which only support 44KB per request. This is interesting. The default size for a RAID5/6 via mdadm these days is 512Kb. > So can I ask what is the "task that is going on"? > I mean, what is your workload and how does it look like (in terms of reads/writes, (a)sync and size)? The load is mostly sequential writes. Samba + NFS shares mainly. Files are usually 300Mb -> 10Gb. Its mostly writes, with occasional reads. Interestingly, I get 220Mb/sec+ reads - but only ~50Mb/sec writes via the DomU. -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 11:42 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 12:29 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 13:26 ` Steven Haigh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Steven Haigh'; +Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Do you know the size of your requests? You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf Felipe -----Original Message----- From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] Sent: 03 April 2013 12:42 To: Felipe Franciosi Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x On 03/04/13 22:36, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Based on what you said later, your raid stripe size is 128KB. When you plug /dev/md3 to your guest, you will be going through blkback/blkfront which only support 44KB per request. This is interesting. The default size for a RAID5/6 via mdadm these days is 512Kb. > So can I ask what is the "task that is going on"? > I mean, what is your workload and how does it look like (in terms of reads/writes, (a)sync and size)? The load is mostly sequential writes. Samba + NFS shares mainly. Files are usually 300Mb -> 10Gb. Its mostly writes, with occasional reads. Interestingly, I get 220Mb/sec+ reads - but only ~50Mb/sec writes via the DomU. -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 12:29 ` Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 13:26 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 14:30 ` Felipe Franciosi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel; +Cc: Felipe Franciosi On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Do you know the size of your requests? > You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s iostat -xm shows: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s details from iostat -xm: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 409.6 10 bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. > I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. > Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. > I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 13:26 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 14:30 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 14:48 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-09 6:53 ` Steven Haigh 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Steven Haigh'; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect Felipe -----Original Message----- From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: Felipe Franciosi Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Do you know the size of your requests? > You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s iostat -xm shows: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s details from iostat -xm: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 409.6 10 bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. > I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. > Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. > I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 14:30 ` Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-03 14:48 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-09 6:53 ` Steven Haigh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-03 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Franciosi; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... Entirely from the DomU: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... > The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? > > He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. > > Felipe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 > To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: Felipe Franciosi > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> Do you know the size of your requests? >> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. > > Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s > > iostat -xm shows: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 > 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 > sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 > 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 > sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 > 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 > sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 > 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 > md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 > 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s > > details from iostat -xm: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 > 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 > sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 > 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 > sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 > 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 > sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 > 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 > md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 > 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 > 409.6 10 > > bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. > >> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. > > /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. > >> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? > > I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. > >> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf > > I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: > > Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 > 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op > 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version > 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op > 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe > 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome > 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io > 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy > 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request > 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops > 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op > 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine > 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction > > Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: > Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 > > 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page > 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string > 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user > 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit > 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge > > Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s > > Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s > > I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-03 14:30 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 14:48 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-09 6:53 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-16 14:39 ` Felipe Franciosi 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-09 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Franciosi; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Resending this - hopefully for comment... On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... Entirely from the DomU: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... > The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? > > He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. > > Felipe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 > To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: Felipe Franciosi > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> Do you know the size of your requests? >> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. > > Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s > > iostat -xm shows: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 > 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 > sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 > 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 > sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 > 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 > sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 > 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 > md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 > 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s > > details from iostat -xm: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 > 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 > sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 > 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 > sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 > 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 > sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 > 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 > md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 > 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 > 409.6 10 > > bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. > >> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. > > /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. > >> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? > > I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. > >> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf > > I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: > > Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 > 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op > 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version > 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op > 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe > 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome > 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io > 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy > 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request > 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops > 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op > 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine > 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction > > Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: > Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 > > 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page > 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string > 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user > 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit > 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge > > Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s > > Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s > > I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-09 6:53 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-16 14:39 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-17 7:52 ` Steven Haigh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-16 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Steven Haigh'; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Hi Steven, sorry for the delay (doing some training followed by holidays). Using "direct" from the guest does speed things up. I'm not entirely sure why. Especially since this is also true (at least with the guests I tested) in XCP/XenServer where the datapath includes a blktap2/tapdisk model where the virtual disks are always opened with O_DIRECT and the only valid operations are READ or WRITE (i.e. there is no special handling for guest operations such as barriers, etc). Have a look at http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX136861 for an understanding of how things work in XCP 1.6 / XenServer 6.1.0. My guess is that "direct" allows you to control the exact size of the requests (creating a consistent data flow). If you omit it and shove all your requests through the guest's buffer cache, what you get in the backend will vary largely in terms of request sizes. This will particularly affect the blkback/blkfront ring utilisation. This hypothesis can hopefully be supported by running iostat in dom0 (e.g. iostat -xm 1) and observing the request sizes. Let me know what you see in your environment. If anyone else in the list have other ideas on this I'd like to hear them as this has been puzzling me too. Another thing you can try is to use "bs=11M" along i/oflag=direct. The "11M" magic number comes from the ring size: with single-page rings, you can have up to 32 requests of 44KiB each in the ring. 32 * 44KiB = 1408 KiB If you try that and observe iostat in dom0, you'll see that the average request size often drops below 44KiB (88 sectors). To keep it consistent I decided to use multiples of that number. The first "whole" number in the order of mebibytes you'll find is 8 rings: 32 * 44 * 1024 * 8 = 11 M. Verify if that gives you more consistency in your results. Last but not least, you should definitely try two other things: 1) oprofile. 2) Roger's kernel with persistent grants and indirect I/O reqs (see below). Using oprofile you should be able to get more directions/ideas in the sense of where your throughput is getting killed. Finally, high throughput is usually achieved with large bandwidth and low latency. Persistent granting should help a lot with reducing latency. The indirect I/O operations that have recently been discussed in this list should help you to achieve larger bandwidth. This should be particularly beneficial in arrays such as yours, where the stripe size is larger than 88K. Link to Roger's blog post and kernel code: http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/11/23/improving-block-protocol-scalability-with-persistent-grants/#more-5711 http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/royger/linux.git;a=summary (xen-block-indirect branch) I am very interested in your results, please share them. Cheers, Felipe -----Original Message----- From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] Sent: 09 April 2013 07:54 To: Felipe Franciosi Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x Resending this - hopefully for comment... On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... Entirely from the DomU: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... > The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? > > He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. > > Felipe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 > To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: Felipe Franciosi > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> Do you know the size of your requests? >> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. > > Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s > > iostat -xm shows: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 > 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 > sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 > 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 > sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 > 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 > sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 > 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 > md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 > 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s > > details from iostat -xm: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 > 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 > sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 > 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 > sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 > 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 > sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 > 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 > md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 > 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 > 409.6 10 > > bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. > >> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. > > /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. > >> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? > > I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. > >> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf > > I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: > > Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 > 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op > 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version > 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op > 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe > 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome > 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io > 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy > 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request > 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops > 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op > 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine > 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction > > Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: > Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 > > 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page > 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string > 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user > 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit > 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct > 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge > > Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s > > Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s > > I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the > slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-16 14:39 ` Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-17 7:52 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-18 13:10 ` Felipe Franciosi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-17 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Franciosi; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org On 04/17/2013 12:39 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Hi Steven, sorry for the delay (doing some training followed by holidays). > > Using "direct" from the guest does speed things up. I'm not entirely sure why. Especially since this is also true (at least with the guests I tested) in XCP/XenServer where the datapath includes a blktap2/tapdisk model where the virtual disks are always opened with O_DIRECT and the only valid operations are READ or WRITE (i.e. there is no special handling for guest operations such as barriers, etc). > > Have a look at http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX136861 for an understanding of how things work in XCP 1.6 / XenServer 6.1.0. > > My guess is that "direct" allows you to control the exact size of the requests (creating a consistent data flow). If you omit it and shove all your requests through the guest's buffer cache, what you get in the backend will vary largely in terms of request sizes. This will particularly affect the blkback/blkfront ring utilisation. This hypothesis can hopefully be supported by running iostat in dom0 (e.g. iostat -xm 1) and observing the request sizes. Let me know what you see in your environment. If anyone else in the list have other ideas on this I'd like to hear them as this has been puzzling me too. > > Another thing you can try is to use "bs=11M" along i/oflag=direct. The "11M" magic number comes from the ring size: with single-page rings, you can have up to 32 requests of 44KiB each in the ring. > 32 * 44KiB = 1408 KiB > If you try that and observe iostat in dom0, you'll see that the average request size often drops below 44KiB (88 sectors). To keep it consistent I decided to use multiples of that number. The first "whole" number in the order of mebibytes you'll find is 8 rings: 32 * 44 * 1024 * 8 = 11 M. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 300+0 records in 300+0 records out 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 73.2253 s, 47.3 MB/s Dom0 iostat -xm 1: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 9.30 0.00 1.16 89.53 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1267.44 6526.74 100.00 545.35 5.31 27.24 103.28 10.28 14.86 1.75 113.02 sdc 1316.28 6348.84 105.81 546.51 5.69 26.94 102.45 4.56 7.02 1.37 89.30 sdd 1139.53 6269.77 110.47 544.19 5.11 26.85 99.99 5.34 8.30 1.35 88.37 sdf 1286.05 6436.05 96.51 548.84 5.50 27.29 104.06 3.52 5.47 1.34 86.51 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1572.09 0.00 51.11 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 oflag=direct 300+0 records in 300+0 records out 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 67.5844 s, 51.2 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 1.14 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 86.36 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1189.77 7005.68 89.77 478.41 5.00 29.35 123.81 5.62 9.90 1.72 97.50 sdc 1040.91 6852.27 77.27 480.68 4.37 28.76 121.60 2.84 5.09 1.11 61.93 sdd 911.36 7057.95 67.05 477.27 3.66 29.46 124.63 4.31 7.51 1.51 82.39 sdf 1185.23 7227.27 72.73 495.45 4.90 30.28 126.80 7.79 13.73 1.82 103.64 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1727.27 0.00 56.54 67.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 It seems that using a block size on dd actually reduces the total write speed. Compare this to using 1M block sizes: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 oflag=direct 3500+0 records in 3500+0 records out 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 27.6453 s, 133 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 27.78 0.00 0.00 72.22 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 sdc 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 512.00 0.50 1.67 1.10 33.33 sdd 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 512.00 0.50 1.66 1.10 33.33 sdf 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 4684.44 0.00 151.11 66.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 3500+0 records in 3500+0 records out 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 81.3315 s, 45.1 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 10.47 0.00 0.00 89.53 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1116.28 5995.35 101.16 555.81 5.02 25.84 96.20 5.99 9.31 1.52 100.00 sdc 1209.30 6019.77 111.63 536.05 5.19 25.07 95.70 5.66 8.58 1.45 93.95 sdd 1236.05 5967.44 97.67 546.51 5.08 25.54 97.34 8.16 12.67 1.60 103.02 sdf 1203.49 5939.53 97.67 554.65 5.12 25.63 96.54 4.76 7.48 1.44 93.95 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1486.05 0.00 48.31 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Out of interest, trying 40k block sizes seems to show roughly the same results as the 11M tests... Maybe this is not related - but I'm not quite sure. > Verify if that gives you more consistency in your results. > > Last but not least, you should definitely try two other things: > 1) oprofile. > 2) Roger's kernel with persistent grants and indirect I/O reqs (see below). > > Using oprofile you should be able to get more directions/ideas in the sense of where your throughput is getting killed. I'll have to look at how to use oprofile to give you useful information from it... I assume you mean running this on the Dom0? > Finally, high throughput is usually achieved with large bandwidth and low latency. Persistent granting should help a lot with reducing latency. The indirect I/O operations that have recently been discussed in this list should help you to achieve larger bandwidth. This should be particularly beneficial in arrays such as yours, where the stripe size is larger than 88K. > > Link to Roger's blog post and kernel code: > http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/11/23/improving-block-protocol-scalability-with-persistent-grants/#more-5711 > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/royger/linux.git;a=summary (xen-block-indirect branch) I'll do some research into this - if someone has a binary RPM package already built from this, I might be able to get results to you much sooner... > I am very interested in your results, please share them. > > Cheers, > Felipe > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 09 April 2013 07:54 > To: Felipe Franciosi > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > Resending this - hopefully for comment... > > On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. > > Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... > > Entirely from the DomU: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s > > I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 oflag=direct > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s > > So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. > > I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... > >> The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? >> >> He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect > > I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. > >> >> Felipe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] >> Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 >> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> Cc: Felipe Franciosi >> Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x >> >> On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >>> Do you know the size of your requests? >>> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. >> >> Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s >> >> iostat -xm shows: >> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >> 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >> sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 >> 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 >> sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 >> 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 >> sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 >> 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 >> sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 >> 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 >> md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 >> 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> >> Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s >> >> details from iostat -xm: >> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >> 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >> sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 >> 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 >> sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 >> 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 >> sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 >> 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 >> sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 >> 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 >> md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 >> 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> >> This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: >> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- >> --Random- >> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- >> --Seeks-- >> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP >> /sec %CP >> xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 >> 409.6 10 >> >> bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. >> >>> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. >> >> /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. >> >>> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? >> >> I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. >> >>> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >>> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf >> >> I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: >> >> Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 >> 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op >> 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version >> 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op >> 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe >> 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome >> 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io >> 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy >> 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >> 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request >> 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops >> 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op >> 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine >> 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction >> >> Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: >> Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 >> >> 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page >> 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string >> 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user >> 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit >> 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >> 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge >> >> Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. >> >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s >> >> Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s >> >> I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the >> slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) >> >> -- >> Steven Haigh >> >> Email: netwiz@crc.id.au >> Web: https://www.crc.id.au >> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 >> Fax: (03) 8338 0299 >> > > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-17 7:52 ` Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-18 13:10 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-19 2:12 ` Steven Haigh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-18 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Steven Haigh'; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Hi Steven, I'm a bit surprised with the results of your "dd" tests using bs=11M. I'd expect to see a constant avgrq-sz of 88 (44K). You seem to be experiencing a varying number near 66. I noticed your "dd" was done on top of a mount point. Could you repeat that test on top of the raw /dev/xvd* device? And yes, oprofile should be ran on dom0. If you provide the kernel symbols for your domU, it will be able to give you detailed information on that as well. I'm afraid I don't have RPMs for Roger's kernel tree. It shouldn't be too hard to clone and build it, though. Let me know if you have problems with that. Cheers, Felipe -----Original Message----- From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] Sent: 17 April 2013 08:53 To: Felipe Franciosi Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x On 04/17/2013 12:39 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Hi Steven, sorry for the delay (doing some training followed by holidays). > > Using "direct" from the guest does speed things up. I'm not entirely sure why. Especially since this is also true (at least with the guests I tested) in XCP/XenServer where the datapath includes a blktap2/tapdisk model where the virtual disks are always opened with O_DIRECT and the only valid operations are READ or WRITE (i.e. there is no special handling for guest operations such as barriers, etc). > > Have a look at http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX136861 for an understanding of how things work in XCP 1.6 / XenServer 6.1.0. > > My guess is that "direct" allows you to control the exact size of the requests (creating a consistent data flow). If you omit it and shove all your requests through the guest's buffer cache, what you get in the backend will vary largely in terms of request sizes. This will particularly affect the blkback/blkfront ring utilisation. This hypothesis can hopefully be supported by running iostat in dom0 (e.g. iostat -xm 1) and observing the request sizes. Let me know what you see in your environment. If anyone else in the list have other ideas on this I'd like to hear them as this has been puzzling me too. > > Another thing you can try is to use "bs=11M" along i/oflag=direct. The "11M" magic number comes from the ring size: with single-page rings, you can have up to 32 requests of 44KiB each in the ring. > 32 * 44KiB = 1408 KiB > If you try that and observe iostat in dom0, you'll see that the average request size often drops below 44KiB (88 sectors). To keep it consistent I decided to use multiples of that number. The first "whole" number in the order of mebibytes you'll find is 8 rings: 32 * 44 * 1024 * 8 = 11 M. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 300+0 records in 300+0 records out 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 73.2253 s, 47.3 MB/s Dom0 iostat -xm 1: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 9.30 0.00 1.16 89.53 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1267.44 6526.74 100.00 545.35 5.31 27.24 103.28 10.28 14.86 1.75 113.02 sdc 1316.28 6348.84 105.81 546.51 5.69 26.94 102.45 4.56 7.02 1.37 89.30 sdd 1139.53 6269.77 110.47 544.19 5.11 26.85 99.99 5.34 8.30 1.35 88.37 sdf 1286.05 6436.05 96.51 548.84 5.50 27.29 104.06 3.52 5.47 1.34 86.51 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1572.09 0.00 51.11 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 oflag=direct 300+0 records in 300+0 records out 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 67.5844 s, 51.2 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 1.14 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 86.36 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1189.77 7005.68 89.77 478.41 5.00 29.35 123.81 5.62 9.90 1.72 97.50 sdc 1040.91 6852.27 77.27 480.68 4.37 28.76 121.60 2.84 5.09 1.11 61.93 sdd 911.36 7057.95 67.05 477.27 3.66 29.46 124.63 4.31 7.51 1.51 82.39 sdf 1185.23 7227.27 72.73 495.45 4.90 30.28 126.80 7.79 13.73 1.82 103.64 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1727.27 0.00 56.54 67.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 It seems that using a block size on dd actually reduces the total write speed. Compare this to using 1M block sizes: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 oflag=direct 3500+0 records in 3500+0 records out 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 27.6453 s, 133 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 27.78 0.00 0.00 72.22 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 sdc 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 512.00 0.50 1.67 1.10 33.33 sdd 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 512.00 0.50 1.66 1.10 33.33 sdf 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 4684.44 0.00 151.11 66.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 3500+0 records in 3500+0 records out 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 81.3315 s, 45.1 MB/s avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.00 0.00 10.47 0.00 0.00 89.53 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sde 1116.28 5995.35 101.16 555.81 5.02 25.84 96.20 5.99 9.31 1.52 100.00 sdc 1209.30 6019.77 111.63 536.05 5.19 25.07 95.70 5.66 8.58 1.45 93.95 sdd 1236.05 5967.44 97.67 546.51 5.08 25.54 97.34 8.16 12.67 1.60 103.02 sdf 1203.49 5939.53 97.67 554.65 5.12 25.63 96.54 4.76 7.48 1.44 93.95 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1486.05 0.00 48.31 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Out of interest, trying 40k block sizes seems to show roughly the same results as the 11M tests... Maybe this is not related - but I'm not quite sure. > Verify if that gives you more consistency in your results. > > Last but not least, you should definitely try two other things: > 1) oprofile. > 2) Roger's kernel with persistent grants and indirect I/O reqs (see below). > > Using oprofile you should be able to get more directions/ideas in the sense of where your throughput is getting killed. I'll have to look at how to use oprofile to give you useful information from it... I assume you mean running this on the Dom0? > Finally, high throughput is usually achieved with large bandwidth and low latency. Persistent granting should help a lot with reducing latency. The indirect I/O operations that have recently been discussed in this list should help you to achieve larger bandwidth. This should be particularly beneficial in arrays such as yours, where the stripe size is larger than 88K. > > Link to Roger's blog post and kernel code: > http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/11/23/improving-block-protocol-scal > ability-with-persistent-grants/#more-5711 > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/royger/linux.git;a=summary > (xen-block-indirect branch) I'll do some research into this - if someone has a binary RPM package already built from this, I might be able to get results to you much sooner... > I am very interested in your results, please share them. > > Cheers, > Felipe > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 09 April 2013 07:54 > To: Felipe Franciosi > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > Resending this - hopefully for comment... > > On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. > > Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... > > Entirely from the DomU: > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > oflag=direct > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm > /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero > of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s > > I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > oflag=direct > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm > /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero > of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 > 4096+0 records in > 4096+0 records out > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s > > So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. > > I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... > >> The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? >> >> He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect > > I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. > >> >> Felipe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] >> Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 >> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> Cc: Felipe Franciosi >> Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x >> >> On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >>> Do you know the size of your requests? >>> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. >> >> Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s >> >> iostat -xm shows: >> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >> 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >> sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 >> 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 >> sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 >> 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 >> sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 >> 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 >> sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 >> 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 >> md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 >> 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> >> Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s >> >> details from iostat -xm: >> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >> 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 >> >> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >> sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 >> 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 >> sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 >> 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 >> sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 >> 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 >> sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 >> 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 >> md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 >> 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> >> This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: >> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- >> --Random- >> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- >> --Seeks-- >> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP >> /sec %CP >> xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 >> 409.6 10 >> >> bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. >> >>> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. >> >> /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. >> >>> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? >> >> I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. >> >>> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >>> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf >> >> I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: >> >> Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 >> 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op >> 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version >> 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op >> 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe >> 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome >> 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io >> 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy >> 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >> 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request >> 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops >> 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op >> 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine >> 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction >> >> Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: >> Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 >> >> 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page >> 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string >> 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user >> 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit >> 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >> 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge >> >> Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. >> >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s >> >> Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s >> >> I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the >> slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) >> >> -- >> Steven Haigh >> >> Email: netwiz@crc.id.au >> Web: https://www.crc.id.au >> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 >> Fax: (03) 8338 0299 >> > > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x 2013-04-18 13:10 ` Felipe Franciosi @ 2013-04-19 2:12 ` Steven Haigh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Steven Haigh @ 2013-04-19 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Franciosi; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org On 18/04/2013, at 23:10, Felipe Franciosi <felipe.franciosi@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > I'm a bit surprised with the results of your "dd" tests using bs=11M. > I'd expect to see a constant avgrq-sz of 88 (44K). You seem to be experiencing a varying number near 66. > > I noticed your "dd" was done on top of a mount point. Could you repeat that test on top of the raw /dev/xvd* device? Sadly not. The file system takes up the whole RAID6 array and is XFS. As previously stated, the device on Dom0 (/dev/md2) is passed as xvdb to the DomU. XFS Info from the DomU: $ xfs_info /dev/xvdb meta-data=/dev/xvdb isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=30521632 blks = sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=976691648, imaxpct=5 = sunit=32 swidth=64 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=476900, version=2 = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > And yes, oprofile should be ran on dom0. If you provide the kernel symbols for your domU, it will be able to give you detailed information on that as well. Hmmm - not exactly sure how to do this. Any pointers to where I can read up on it? > I'm afraid I don't have RPMs for Roger's kernel tree. It shouldn't be too hard to clone and build it, though. Let me know if you have problems with that. I'll try to have a look at this over the weekend. -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] > Sent: 17 April 2013 08:53 > To: Felipe Franciosi > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x > > On 04/17/2013 12:39 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> Hi Steven, sorry for the delay (doing some training followed by holidays). >> >> Using "direct" from the guest does speed things up. I'm not entirely sure why. Especially since this is also true (at least with the guests I tested) in XCP/XenServer where the datapath includes a blktap2/tapdisk model where the virtual disks are always opened with O_DIRECT and the only valid operations are READ or WRITE (i.e. there is no special handling for guest operations such as barriers, etc). >> >> Have a look at http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX136861 for an understanding of how things work in XCP 1.6 / XenServer 6.1.0. >> >> My guess is that "direct" allows you to control the exact size of the requests (creating a consistent data flow). If you omit it and shove all your requests through the guest's buffer cache, what you get in the backend will vary largely in terms of request sizes. This will particularly affect the blkback/blkfront ring utilisation. This hypothesis can hopefully be supported by running iostat in dom0 (e.g. iostat -xm 1) and observing the request sizes. Let me know what you see in your environment. If anyone else in the list have other ideas on this I'd like to hear them as this has been puzzling me too. >> >> Another thing you can try is to use "bs=11M" along i/oflag=direct. The "11M" magic number comes from the ring size: with single-page rings, you can have up to 32 requests of 44KiB each in the ring. >> 32 * 44KiB = 1408 KiB >> If you try that and observe iostat in dom0, you'll see that the average request size often drops below 44KiB (88 sectors). To keep it consistent I decided to use multiples of that number. The first "whole" number in the order of mebibytes you'll find is 8 rings: 32 * 44 * 1024 * 8 = 11 M. > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 > 300+0 records in > 300+0 records out > 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 73.2253 s, 47.3 MB/s > > Dom0 iostat -xm 1: > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 9.30 0.00 1.16 89.53 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sde 1267.44 6526.74 100.00 545.35 5.31 27.24 > 103.28 10.28 14.86 1.75 113.02 > sdc 1316.28 6348.84 105.81 546.51 5.69 26.94 > 102.45 4.56 7.02 1.37 89.30 > sdd 1139.53 6269.77 110.47 544.19 5.11 26.85 > 99.99 5.34 8.30 1.35 88.37 > sdf 1286.05 6436.05 96.51 548.84 5.50 27.29 > 104.06 3.52 5.47 1.34 86.51 > md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1572.09 0.00 51.11 > 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=11M count=300 oflag=direct > 300+0 records in > 300+0 records out > 3460300800 bytes (3.5 GB) copied, 67.5844 s, 51.2 MB/s > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 1.14 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 86.36 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sde 1189.77 7005.68 89.77 478.41 5.00 29.35 > 123.81 5.62 9.90 1.72 97.50 > sdc 1040.91 6852.27 77.27 480.68 4.37 28.76 > 121.60 2.84 5.09 1.11 61.93 > sdd 911.36 7057.95 67.05 477.27 3.66 29.46 > 124.63 4.31 7.51 1.51 82.39 > sdf 1185.23 7227.27 72.73 495.45 4.90 30.28 > 126.80 7.79 13.73 1.82 103.64 > md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1727.27 0.00 56.54 > 67.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > It seems that using a block size on dd actually reduces the total write speed. > > Compare this to using 1M block sizes: > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 oflag=direct > 3500+0 records in > 3500+0 records out > 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 27.6453 s, 133 MB/s > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 27.78 0.00 0.00 72.22 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sde 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 > 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 > sdc 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 > 512.00 0.50 1.67 1.10 33.33 > sdd 0.00 19040.00 0.00 302.22 0.00 75.56 > 512.00 0.50 1.66 1.10 33.33 > sdf 0.00 19040.00 0.00 303.33 0.00 75.83 > 512.00 1.28 4.22 2.81 85.22 > md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 4684.44 0.00 151.11 > 66.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=3500 > 3500+0 records in > 3500+0 records out > 3670016000 bytes (3.7 GB) copied, 81.3315 s, 45.1 MB/s > > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 0.00 0.00 10.47 0.00 0.00 89.53 > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > sde 1116.28 5995.35 101.16 555.81 5.02 25.84 > 96.20 5.99 9.31 1.52 100.00 > sdc 1209.30 6019.77 111.63 536.05 5.19 25.07 > 95.70 5.66 8.58 1.45 93.95 > sdd 1236.05 5967.44 97.67 546.51 5.08 25.54 > 97.34 8.16 12.67 1.60 103.02 > sdf 1203.49 5939.53 97.67 554.65 5.12 25.63 > 96.54 4.76 7.48 1.44 93.95 > md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1486.05 0.00 48.31 > 66.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > > Out of interest, trying 40k block sizes seems to show roughly the same results as the 11M tests... Maybe this is not related - but I'm not quite sure. > >> Verify if that gives you more consistency in your results. >> >> Last but not least, you should definitely try two other things: >> 1) oprofile. >> 2) Roger's kernel with persistent grants and indirect I/O reqs (see below). >> >> Using oprofile you should be able to get more directions/ideas in the sense of where your throughput is getting killed. > > I'll have to look at how to use oprofile to give you useful information from it... I assume you mean running this on the Dom0? > >> Finally, high throughput is usually achieved with large bandwidth and low latency. Persistent granting should help a lot with reducing latency. The indirect I/O operations that have recently been discussed in this list should help you to achieve larger bandwidth. This should be particularly beneficial in arrays such as yours, where the stripe size is larger than 88K. >> >> Link to Roger's blog post and kernel code: >> http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/11/23/improving-block-protocol-scal >> ability-with-persistent-grants/#more-5711 >> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/royger/linux.git;a=summary >> (xen-block-indirect branch) > > I'll do some research into this - if someone has a binary RPM package already built from this, I might be able to get results to you much sooner... > >> I am very interested in your results, please share them. >> >> Cheers, >> Felipe >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] >> Sent: 09 April 2013 07:54 >> To: Felipe Franciosi >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x >> >> Resending this - hopefully for comment... >> >> On 04/04/13 01:30, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >>> I think you should use i/oflag=direct on your "dd"s to bypass the buffer cache in the guest. Might provide more consistent results. >> >> Ah - you are correct. I usually don't forget that. This has however discovered something interesting... >> >> Entirely from the DomU: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> oflag=direct >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 45.2753 s, 94.9 MB/s # rm >> /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # dd if=/dev/zero >> of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.5808 s, 53.3 MB/s >> >> I did this 3-4 times with the same trend... >> >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> oflag=direct >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 40.693 s, 106 MB/s # rm >> /mnt/fileshare/output.zero # sync # dd if=/dev/zero >> of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >> 4096+0 records in >> 4096+0 records out >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 82.1511 s, 52.3 MB/s >> >> So, when the DomU is using write buffers, write speed is halved. This I don't understand. >> >> I haven't tweaked the array at all yet (as I've just been experimenting with this problem) - so with a bit of time, I can probably even increase its write speed some more - but without this speed decrease solved, it isn't really worth it yet... >> >>> The result of oprofile is intriguing. Did you have a chance to try Roger's persistent grant implementation? >>> >>> He mentions it on his 08/03 e-mail. It's here: >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/linux.git xen-block-indirect >> >> I can't say I have - Although I package Xen for EL6, we're getting to the edge of my knowledge here. >> >>> >>> Felipe >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steven Haigh [mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au] >>> Sent: 03 April 2013 14:27 >>> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org >>> Cc: Felipe Franciosi >>> Subject: Re: Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x >>> >>> On 03/04/13 23:29, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >>>> Do you know the size of your requests? >>>> You used "iostat -m". Perhaps "iostat -xm" could be more meaningful as it will tell you the average request size in sectors. >>> >>> Good call. I started just a sequential write with dd from /dev/zero on the DomU: >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >>> 4096+0 records in >>> 4096+0 records out >>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 91.269 s, 47.1 MB/s >>> >>> iostat -xm shows: >>> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >>> 0.11 0.00 2.71 0.23 0.56 96.38 >>> >>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >>> sdc 1208.40 5337.80 150.00 645.20 5.35 23.39 >>> 74.00 6.47 8.15 0.91 72.72 >>> sdf 1199.80 5350.80 148.00 643.40 5.30 23.34 >>> 74.12 6.88 8.68 0.96 76.06 >>> sdd 1203.40 5304.60 148.80 638.60 5.28 23.21 >>> 74.11 5.42 6.88 0.78 61.38 >>> sde 1213.80 5382.40 148.40 652.40 5.37 23.59 >>> 74.08 6.40 8.00 0.94 75.20 >>> md3 0.00 0.00 1.60 1312.20 0.05 42.68 >>> 66.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >>> >>> Shutting down the DomU, mounting /dev/md3 in and doing this directly from the Dom0 shows: >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >>> 4096+0 records in >>> 4096+0 records out >>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 44.2801 s, 97.0 MB/s >>> >>> details from iostat -xm: >>> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >>> 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.57 97.27 >>> >>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s >>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >>> sdc 1175.40 5220.60 143.40 633.60 5.13 22.85 >>> 73.76 6.01 7.73 0.87 67.60 >>> sdf 1175.20 5154.00 147.40 624.40 5.14 22.55 >>> 73.46 6.87 8.88 0.97 74.90 >>> sdd 1183.40 5133.80 145.40 625.20 5.19 22.50 >>> 73.60 5.19 6.73 0.77 59.60 >>> sde 1176.40 5229.60 146.00 637.00 5.16 22.99 >>> 73.62 7.39 9.51 0.99 77.90 >>> md3 0.00 0.00 0.60 1277.40 0.02 41.56 >>> 66.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >>> >>> This about ties in with what bonnie++ gets as the write speed: >>> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- >>> --Random- >>> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- >>> --Seeks-- >>> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP >>> /sec %CP >>> xenhost.lan.crc. 2G 635 91 97526 15 67864 16 952 97 295833 35 >>> 409.6 10 >>> >>> bonnie++ maxes out at about the same as dd in the DomU. >>> >>>> I still didn't understand your environment. I think this is the first time you mention NFS/SMB. >>> >>> /dev/md3 is passed through as a phy device to a DomU. This DomU runs both samba and NFS shares. It doesn't seem to matter what method is the source of the writes to the drive (dd, bonnie++, sending a file via NFS or Samba), the max write speed seems to be bottlenecking at ~50Mb/sec - which I believe is purely the write speed to the array via the DomU. >>> >>>> Weren't you testing copies from /dev/zero to your device? >>> >>> I have tested many ways - this being just one of them. >>> >>>> I'd also recommend you run "oprofile" to see if there are any time sinks that we are overlooking. You can find out how to use it here: >>>> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Profiling:_oprofile_and_perf >>> >>> I ran 'perf top' on the Dom0, then started a write (dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/fileshare/output.zero bs=1M count=4096) on the DomU. This is what I'd see as the relevant output: >>> >>> Samples: 574K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 60028 >>> 88.37% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_sched_op >>> 4.73% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_xen_version >>> 1.00% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_grant_table_op >>> 0.99% [raid456] [k] handle_stripe >>> 0.77% [raid6_pq] [k] raid6_sse24_gen_syndrome >>> 0.66% [raid456] [k] ops_run_io >>> 0.57% [kernel] [k] memcpy >>> 0.21% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >>> 0.18% [raid456] [k] raid5_end_write_request >>> 0.18% [raid456] [k] __raid_run_ops >>> 0.14% [kernel] [k] xen_hypercall_event_channel_op >>> 0.11% [kernel] [k] get_phys_to_machine >>> 0.09% [raid456] [k] schedule_reconstruction >>> >>> Now repeated, with the same on the DomU: >>> Samples: 300K of event 'cpu-clock', Event count (approx.): 84845 >>> >>> 97.63% [kernel] [k] hypercall_page >>> 0.44% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string >>> 0.41% [kernel] [k] __clear_user >>> 0.08% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit >>> 0.07% [kernel] [k] xen_restore_fl_direct >>> 0.07% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge >>> >>> Now, interestingly enough... The root drive (xvda) of the DomU in question is on a separate RAID1. This is passed as an LV. >>> >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/output.bin bs=1M count=4096 >>> 4096+0 records in >>> 4096+0 records out >>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 69.7036 s, 61.6 MB/s >>> >>> Then from the Dom0 to the same RAID1: >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=output.zero bs=1M count=4096 >>> 4096+0 records in >>> 4096+0 records out >>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 48.4407 s, 88.7 MB/s >>> >>> I don't really know what else I can do to try and see where the >>> slowdown is here - I am open to suggestions though :) >>> >>> -- >>> Steven Haigh >>> >>> Email: netwiz@crc.id.au >>> Web: https://www.crc.id.au >>> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 >>> Fax: (03) 8338 0299 >> >> >> -- >> Steven Haigh >> >> Email: netwiz@crc.id.au >> Web: https://www.crc.id.au >> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 >> Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-04-19 2:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-04-03 2:05 Xen disk write slowness in kernel 3.8.x Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 2:14 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 11:36 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 11:42 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 12:29 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 13:26 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-03 14:30 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-03 14:48 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-09 6:53 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-16 14:39 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-17 7:52 ` Steven Haigh 2013-04-18 13:10 ` Felipe Franciosi 2013-04-19 2:12 ` Steven Haigh
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.