* Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
@ 2014-05-07 7:45 Kim Holmebakken
2014-05-07 8:02 ` Erwan Velu
2014-05-07 8:10 ` puvi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kim Holmebakken @ 2014-05-07 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fio
Hey,
Im currently working on a bachelor thesis where I need to measure iops
on my storage solution.
I have set up a "frontend" server(ubuntu server 13.10) which has zfs on
linux running, and is connected to an iSCSI RAID(SAN).
When I use this command:
fio --directory=/pool --size=128M --direct=0 --fallocate=none
--rw=randrw --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0
--ioengine=sync --bs=4k --rwmixread=100 --iodepth=16 --numjobs=16
--runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4krandreadtest
I get:
4krandreadtest: (groupid=0, jobs=16): err= 0: pid=4101
read : io=2048.0MB, bw=2158.7MB/s, iops=552463 , runt= 949msec
clat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.15, stdev=346.02
lat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.28, stdev=346.07
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 5], 5.00th=[ 5], 10.00th=[ 6], 20.00th=[ 8],
| 30.00th=[ 9], 40.00th=[ 9], 50.00th=[ 9], 60.00th=[ 10],
| 70.00th=[ 11], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 16], 95.00th=[ 19],
| 99.00th=[ 35], 99.50th=[ 133], 99.90th=[ 5664], 99.95th=[ 8160],
| 99.99th=[14528]
bw (KB/s) : min=114424, max=159840, per=6.09%, avg=134474.12,
stdev=13435.6
7
lat (usec) : 10=51.38%, 20=44.19%, 50=3.71%, 100=0.15%, 250=0.19%
lat (usec) : 500=0.06%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.02%
lat (msec) : 2=0.05%, 4=0.08%, 10=0.12%, 20=0.03%, 50=0.01%
cpu : usr=5.76%, sys=37.95%, ctx=5049, majf=0, minf=409
IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
read : io=2048.0MB, bw=2158.7MB/s, iops=552463 , runt= 949msec
clat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.15, stdev=346.02
lat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.28, stdev=346.07
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 5], 5.00th=[ 5], 10.00th=[ 6], 20.00th=[ 8],
| 30.00th=[ 9], 40.00th=[ 9], 50.00th=[ 9], 60.00th=[ 10],
| 70.00th=[ 11], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 16], 95.00th=[ 19],
| 99.00th=[ 35], 99.50th=[ 133], 99.90th=[ 5664], 99.95th=[ 8160],
| 99.99th=[14528]
bw (KB/s) : min=114424, max=159840, per=6.09%, avg=134474.12,
stdev=13435.6
7
lat (usec) : 10=51.38%, 20=44.19%, 50=3.71%, 100=0.15%, 250=0.19%
lat (usec) : 500=0.06%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.02%
lat (msec) : 2=0.05%, 4=0.08%, 10=0.12%, 20=0.03%, 50=0.01%
cpu : usr=5.76%, sys=37.95%, ctx=5049, majf=0, minf=409
IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=524288/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=2048.0MB, aggrb=2158.7MB/s, minb=2158.7MB/s,
maxb=2158.7MB/s, mint=9
49msec, maxt=949msec
These values are extremly high and I suspect that these are the RAM
speed being returned to me.
Is there anyway to get a more realistic result?
Thanks in advance,
Kim Holmebakken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
2014-05-07 7:45 Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds Kim Holmebakken
@ 2014-05-07 8:02 ` Erwan Velu
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP1086A621DD12787F2EECD40E54E0@phx.gbl>
2014-05-07 8:10 ` puvi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Erwan Velu @ 2014-05-07 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kim Holmebakken; +Cc: fio
Le 07/05/2014 09:45, Kim Holmebakken a �crit :
> Hey,
>
> Im currently working on a bachelor thesis where I need to measure iops
> on my storage solution.
>
> I have set up a "frontend" server(ubuntu server 13.10) which has zfs
> on linux running, and is connected to an iSCSI RAID(SAN).
>
> When I use this command:
>
> fio --directory=/pool --size=128M --direct=0 --fallocate=none
> --rw=randrw --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0
> --ioengine=sync --bs=4k --rwmixread=100 --iodepth=16 --numjobs=16
> --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4krandreadtest
[...]
> These values are extremly high and I suspect that these are the RAM
> speed being returned to me.
>
> Is there anyway to get a more realistic result?
You do cached IOs (as direct=0), only 128M of data and everything into a
file. As a result, yes everything is getting into the host's cache.
If you want to determine the ISCSI performance byitself, I suggest not
using file but the block device and do direct IOs (direct=1).
If you want to keep your filesystem you have two options : enabling the
direct=1 and/or making IOs at twice the size of your host memory.
Hope this helps,
Erwan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
2014-05-07 7:45 Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds Kim Holmebakken
2014-05-07 8:02 ` Erwan Velu
@ 2014-05-07 8:10 ` puvi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: puvi @ 2014-05-07 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kim Holmebakken; +Cc: fio
Is all the reads getting satisifed from your filesystem cache? Is your
memory much larger than the file size? Can you try a run after
unmount/mount to clear the fs cache?
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Kim Holmebakken
<kim.holmebakken@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Im currently working on a bachelor thesis where I need to measure iops on my
> storage solution.
>
> I have set up a "frontend" server(ubuntu server 13.10) which has zfs on
> linux running, and is connected to an iSCSI RAID(SAN).
>
> When I use this command:
>
> fio --directory=/pool --size=128M --direct=0 --fallocate=none --rw=randrw
> --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=sync --bs=4k
> --rwmixread=100 --iodepth=16 --numjobs=16 --runtime=60 --group_reporting
> --name=4krandreadtest
>
> I get:
>
> 4krandreadtest: (groupid=0, jobs=16): err= 0: pid=4101
> read : io=2048.0MB, bw=2158.7MB/s, iops=552463 , runt= 949msec
> clat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.15, stdev=346.02
> lat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.28, stdev=346.07
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 5], 5.00th=[ 5], 10.00th=[ 6], 20.00th=[ 8],
> | 30.00th=[ 9], 40.00th=[ 9], 50.00th=[ 9], 60.00th=[ 10],
> | 70.00th=[ 11], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 16], 95.00th=[ 19],
> | 99.00th=[ 35], 99.50th=[ 133], 99.90th=[ 5664], 99.95th=[ 8160],
> | 99.99th=[14528]
> bw (KB/s) : min=114424, max=159840, per=6.09%, avg=134474.12,
> stdev=13435.6
> 7
> lat (usec) : 10=51.38%, 20=44.19%, 50=3.71%, 100=0.15%, 250=0.19%
> lat (usec) : 500=0.06%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.02%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.05%, 4=0.08%, 10=0.12%, 20=0.03%, 50=0.01%
> cpu : usr=5.76%, sys=37.95%, ctx=5049, majf=0, minf=409
> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>>=64=0.0%
>
> read : io=2048.0MB, bw=2158.7MB/s, iops=552463 , runt= 949msec
> clat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.15, stdev=346.02
> lat (usec): min=4 , max=23125 , avg=26.28, stdev=346.07
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 5], 5.00th=[ 5], 10.00th=[ 6], 20.00th=[ 8],
> | 30.00th=[ 9], 40.00th=[ 9], 50.00th=[ 9], 60.00th=[ 10],
> | 70.00th=[ 11], 80.00th=[ 12], 90.00th=[ 16], 95.00th=[ 19],
> | 99.00th=[ 35], 99.50th=[ 133], 99.90th=[ 5664], 99.95th=[ 8160],
> | 99.99th=[14528]
> bw (KB/s) : min=114424, max=159840, per=6.09%, avg=134474.12,
> stdev=13435.6
> 7
> lat (usec) : 10=51.38%, 20=44.19%, 50=3.71%, 100=0.15%, 250=0.19%
> lat (usec) : 500=0.06%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.02%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.05%, 4=0.08%, 10=0.12%, 20=0.03%, 50=0.01%
> cpu : usr=5.76%, sys=37.95%, ctx=5049, majf=0, minf=409
> IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>>=64=0.0%
> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>=64=0.0%
> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=524288/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=2048.0MB, aggrb=2158.7MB/s, minb=2158.7MB/s, maxb=2158.7MB/s,
> mint=9
> 49msec, maxt=949msec
>
> These values are extremly high and I suspect that these are the RAM speed
> being returned to me.
>
> Is there anyway to get a more realistic result?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Kim Holmebakken
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP1086A621DD12787F2EECD40E54E0@phx.gbl>
@ 2014-05-07 8:27 ` Erwan Velu
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP218F8CEFE3A8ED088644478E54E0@phx.gbl>
2014-05-07 14:21 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Erwan Velu @ 2014-05-07 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kim Holmebakken; +Cc: fio
Le 07/05/2014 10:19, Kim Holmebakken a �crit :
> Also the direct=0 is for the fact that in the documentation to fio the
> direct= parameter is not supported for zfs. And as a result the test
> will not complete(it does not even create the test files).
So you need to make a much more longer run to minimize the cache effect.
Running like twice the memory of the server could be an interesting
test. 128M on a cached FS is clearly not enough.
Erwan,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP218F8CEFE3A8ED088644478E54E0@phx.gbl>
@ 2014-05-07 9:12 ` Erwan Velu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Erwan Velu @ 2014-05-07 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kim Holmebakken; +Cc: fio
Le 07/05/2014 10:58, Kim Holmebakken a �crit :
> I tried running with the size=24G since the memory on the server is at
> 12GB, this reduced the iops, however the MB/s is now reduced from
> 2000+ MB/s, and now running on 850 MB/s
>
> Still i think this might be a bit high?
If you do random IOs there is still a great chance of having cache hits.
This number have to be put in comparison with the network bandwidth.
If you have a 1Gbit connection ... 850 is clearly hitting lot of cache.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds
2014-05-07 8:27 ` Erwan Velu
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP218F8CEFE3A8ED088644478E54E0@phx.gbl>
@ 2014-05-07 14:21 ` Jens Axboe
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2014-05-07 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Erwan Velu, Kim Holmebakken; +Cc: fio
> Le 07/05/2014 10:19, Kim Holmebakken a �crit :
>> Also the direct=0 is for the fact that in the documentation to fio the
>> direct= parameter is not supported for zfs. And as a result the test
>> will not complete(it does not even create the test files).
Clarification, this is not a fio limitation, it's zfs that doesn't
support unbuffered IO.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-07 14:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-07 7:45 Fio giving iops results that are equal to RAM speeds Kim Holmebakken
2014-05-07 8:02 ` Erwan Velu
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP1086A621DD12787F2EECD40E54E0@phx.gbl>
2014-05-07 8:27 ` Erwan Velu
[not found] ` <BLU436-SMTP218F8CEFE3A8ED088644478E54E0@phx.gbl>
2014-05-07 9:12 ` Erwan Velu
2014-05-07 14:21 ` Jens Axboe
2014-05-07 8:10 ` puvi
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.