puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[姚宁]

Hi, guys

I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code.

I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the
journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync()
system call after every write operation. However, this kind of
operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high
committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD
has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can
set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH
REQUEST. So the performance would be better.

So can it be instead by other strategies?
As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log
and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from
the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we
can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo"
strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal?  It will save lots of
bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can
always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead
to recovery more objects if the osd crash.

Nicheal

RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Somnath Roy]

Hi Nicheal,
Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info.

Thanks & Regards
Somnath

-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ??
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM
To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

Hi, guys

I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code.

I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better.

So can it be instead by other strategies?
As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo"
strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal?  It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash.

Nicheal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

________________________________

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).

RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Chen, Xiaoxi]

Hi Nicheal,

1.  The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen.  For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD.

2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync  kill the performance of journal?   In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)

								Xiaoxi



-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM
To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

Hi Nicheal,
Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info.

Thanks & Regards
Somnath

-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ??
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM
To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

Hi, guys

I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code.

I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better.

So can it be instead by other strategies?
As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo"
strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal?  It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash.

Nicheal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

________________________________

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).

N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w       j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  ! i

Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync  kill the performance of journal?   In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a >>same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)

Hi,

I have done some bench here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg12950.html

Some ssd models have really bad performance with O_DSYNC (crucial m550 - 312 iops on 4k block).
Benching 1 osd,I can see big latencies for some seconds when O_DSYNC occur



crucial m550
------------
#fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
--group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1
bw=1249.9KB/s, iops=312

intel s3500
-----------
fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
--group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1
#bw=41794KB/s, iops=10448

----- Mail original ----- 

De: "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com> 
À: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 09:59:37 
Objet: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 

Hi Nicheal, 

1. The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen. For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD. 

2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s) 

Xiaoxi 



-----Original Message----- 
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM 
To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 

Hi Nicheal, 
Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info. 

Thanks & Regards 
Somnath 

-----Original Message----- 
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ?? 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM 
To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 

Hi, guys 

I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code. 

I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better. 

So can it be instead by other strategies? 
As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo" 
strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal? It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash. 

Nicheal 
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 

________________________________ 

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies). 

N r y b X ǧv ^ )޺{.n + z ]z {ay ʇڙ ,j f h z w j:+v w j m zZ+ ݢj" ! i 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Mark Nelson]

On 09/17/2014 09:20 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync  kill the performance of journal?   In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a >>same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
>
> Hi,
>
> I have done some bench here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg12950.html
>
> Some ssd models have really bad performance with O_DSYNC (crucial m550 - 312 iops on 4k block).
> Benching 1 osd,I can see big latencies for some seconds when O_DSYNC occur

FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many 
concurrent 4k client writes.  Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, the 
journal will start coalescing.  For say 100-150 IOPs (what a spinning 
disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes (with padding 
and header/footer for each client IO).  What we've seen is that some 
drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are still reasonably 
good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes.

>
>
>
> crucial m550
> ------------
> #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1
> bw=1249.9KB/s, iops=312
>
> intel s3500
> -----------
> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1
> #bw=41794KB/s, iops=10448
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>
> De: "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com>
> À: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 09:59:37
> Objet: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance
>
> Hi Nicheal,
>
> 1. The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen. For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD.
>
> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
>
> Xiaoxi
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM
> To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance
>
> Hi Nicheal,
> Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Somnath
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ??
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM
> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance
>
> Hi, guys
>
> I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code.
>
> I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better.
>
> So can it be instead by other strategies?
> As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo"
> strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal? It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash.
>
> Nicheal
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many 
>>concurrent 4k client writes.  Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, the 
>>journal will start coalescing.  For say 100-150 IOPs (what a spinning 
>>disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes (with padding 
>>and header/footer for each client IO).  What we've seen is that some 
>>drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are still reasonably 
>>good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes.

Yes, indeed, it's not that bad. (hopefully ;)

When benching the crucial m550, I only see time to time (maybe each 30s,don't remember exactly), ios slowing doing to 200 for 1 or 2 seconds
then going up to normal speed around 4000iops.

with intel s3500, I have constant write at 5000iops.


BTW, does rbd client cache also help for coalescing write (client side), then help also the journal ?





----- Mail original ----- 

De: "Mark Nelson" <mark.nelson@inktank.com> 
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com> 
Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 17:01:06 
Objet: Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 

On 09/17/2014 09:20 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: 
>>> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a >>same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s) 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I have done some bench here: 
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg12950.html 
> 
> Some ssd models have really bad performance with O_DSYNC (crucial m550 - 312 iops on 4k block). 
> Benching 1 osd,I can see big latencies for some seconds when O_DSYNC occur 

FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many 
concurrent 4k client writes. Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, the 
journal will start coalescing. For say 100-150 IOPs (what a spinning 
disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes (with padding 
and header/footer for each client IO). What we've seen is that some 
drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are still reasonably 
good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes. 

> 
> 
> 
> crucial m550 
> ------------ 
> #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 
> bw=1249.9KB/s, iops=312 
> 
> intel s3500 
> ----------- 
> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 
> #bw=41794KB/s, iops=10448 
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> 
> De: "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com> 
> À: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 09:59:37 
> Objet: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 
> 
> Hi Nicheal, 
> 
> 1. The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen. For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD. 
> 
> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s) 
> 
> Xiaoxi 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM 
> To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
> Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 
> 
> Hi Nicheal, 
> Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info. 
> 
> Thanks & Regards 
> Somnath 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ?? 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM 
> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 
> Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 
> 
> Hi, guys 
> 
> I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code. 
> 
> I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better. 
> 
> So can it be instead by other strategies? 
> As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo" 
> strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal? It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash. 
> 
> Nicheal 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Chen, Xiaoxi]

>When benching the crucial m550, I only see time to time (maybe each 30s,don't remember exactly), ios slowing doing to 200 for 1 or 2 seconds then going up to normal speed around 4000iops

Wow, that indicate m550 is busying with garbage collection , maybe just try to overprovision a bit (say if you have a 400G ssd , but only partition ~300G), overprovision SSD generally both help performance and durability. Actually if you look at the difference spec between Intel S3500 and S3700, the root cause is different over provision ratio :)

-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 5:13 AM
To: Mark Nelson
Cc: Somnath Roy; ??; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Xiaoxi
Subject: Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

>>FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many 
>>concurrent 4k client writes.  Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, 
>>the journal will start coalescing.  For say 100-150 IOPs (what a 
>>spinning disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes 
>>(with padding and header/footer for each client IO).  What we've seen 
>>is that some drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are 
>>still reasonably good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes.

Yes, indeed, it's not that bad. (hopefully ;)

When benching the crucial m550, I only see time to time (maybe each 30s,don't remember exactly), ios slowing doing to 200 for 1 or 2 seconds then going up to normal speed around 4000iops.

with intel s3500, I have constant write at 5000iops.


BTW, does rbd client cache also help for coalescing write (client side), then help also the journal ?





----- Mail original ----- 

De: "Mark Nelson" <mark.nelson@inktank.com>
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com>
Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 17:01:06
Objet: Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance 

On 09/17/2014 09:20 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: 
>>> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the 
>>> performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a 
>>> partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD 
>>> share a >>same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have done some bench here: 
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg12950.html
> 
> Some ssd models have really bad performance with O_DSYNC (crucial m550 - 312 iops on 4k block). 
> Benching 1 osd,I can see big latencies for some seconds when O_DSYNC 
> occur

FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many concurrent 4k client writes. Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, the journal will start coalescing. For say 100-150 IOPs (what a spinning disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes (with padding and header/footer for each client IO). What we've seen is that some drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are still reasonably good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes. 

> 
> 
> 
> crucial m550
> ------------
> #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 bw=1249.9KB/s, 
> iops=312
> 
> intel s3500
> -----------
> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 
> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 #bw=41794KB/s, 
> iops=10448
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> 
> De: "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com>
> À: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, 
> ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 09:59:37
> Objet: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really 
> ruining performance
> 
> Hi Nicheal,
> 
> 1. The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen. For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD. 
> 
> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the 
> performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a 
> partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share 
> a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
> 
> Xiaoxi
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org 
> [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM
> To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really 
> ruining performance
> 
> Hi Nicheal,
> Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info. 
> 
> Thanks & Regards
> Somnath
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ?? 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM
> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really 
> ruining performance
> 
> Hi, guys
> 
> I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code. 
> 
> I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better. 
> 
> So can it be instead by other strategies? 
> As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo" 
> strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal? It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash. 
> 
> Nicheal
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance

[Mark Nelson]

On 09/17/2014 08:05 PM, Chen, Xiaoxi wrote:
>> When benching the crucial m550, I only see time to time (maybe each 30s,don't remember exactly), ios slowing doing to 200 for 1 or 2 seconds then going up to normal speed around 4000iops
>
> Wow, that indicate m550 is busying with garbage collection , maybe just try to overprovision a bit (say if you have a 400G ssd , but only partition ~300G), overprovision SSD generally both help performance and durability. Actually if you look at the difference spec between Intel S3500 and S3700, the root cause is different over provision ratio :)

Hrm, I thought the S3700 uses MLC-HET cells while the S3500 uses regular 
MLC?

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 5:13 AM
> To: Mark Nelson
> Cc: Somnath Roy; ??; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Xiaoxi
> Subject: Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance
>
>>> FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many
>>> concurrent 4k client writes.  Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD,
>>> the journal will start coalescing.  For say 100-150 IOPs (what a
>>> spinning disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes
>>> (with padding and header/footer for each client IO).  What we've seen
>>> is that some drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are
>>> still reasonably good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes.
>
> Yes, indeed, it's not that bad. (hopefully ;)
>
> When benching the crucial m550, I only see time to time (maybe each 30s,don't remember exactly), ios slowing doing to 200 for 1 or 2 seconds then going up to normal speed around 4000iops.
>
> with intel s3500, I have constant write at 5000iops.
>
>
> BTW, does rbd client cache also help for coalescing write (client side), then help also the journal ?
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>
> De: "Mark Nelson" <mark.nelson@inktank.com>
> À: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 17:01:06
> Objet: Re: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really ruining performance
>
> On 09/17/2014 09:20 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the
>>>> performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a
>>>> partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD
>>>> share a >>same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have done some bench here:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg12950.html
>>
>> Some ssd models have really bad performance with O_DSYNC (crucial m550 - 312 iops on 4k block).
>> Benching 1 osd,I can see big latencies for some seconds when O_DSYNC
>> occur
>
> FWIW, the journal will coalesce writes quickly when there are many concurrent 4k client writes. Once you hit around 8 4k IOs per OSD, the journal will start coalescing. For say 100-150 IOPs (what a spinning disk can handle), expect around 9ish 100KB journal writes (with padding and header/footer for each client IO). What we've seen is that some drives that aren't that great at 4K O_DSYNC writes are still reasonably good with 8+ concurrent larger O_DSYNC writes.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> crucial m550
>> ------------
>> #fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2
>> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 bw=1249.9KB/s,
>> iops=312
>>
>> intel s3500
>> -----------
>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2
>> --group_reporting --invalidate=0 --name=ab --sync=1 #bw=41794KB/s,
>> iops=10448
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>
>> De: "Xiaoxi Chen" <xiaoxi.chen@intel.com>
>> À: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "??" <zay11022@gmail.com>,
>> ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Septembre 2014 09:59:37
>> Objet: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really
>> ruining performance
>>
>> Hi Nicheal,
>>
>> 1. The main purpose of journal is provide transaction semantics (prevent partially update). Peer is not enough for this need because ceph writes all replica at the same time, so when crush, you have no idea about which replica has right data. For example, say if we have 2 replica, user update a 4M object and the primary OSD crush when the first 2M was written , secondary OSD may also failed when the first 3MB was written. So both versions in primary/secondary are neither the new value, nor the old value, and have no way to recover. So share the same idea as database, we need to have a journal to support transaction and prevent this happen. For some backend support transaction, BTRFS as an instance, we don't need a journal, we can write the journal and data disk at the same time, the journal here is just try to help performance, since it only do sequential write and we suspect it should be faster than backend OSD.
>>
>> 2. Have you got any data to prove the O_DSYNC or fdatasync kill the
>> performance of journal? In our previous test, the journal SSD (use a
>> partition of a SSD as a journal for a particular OSD, and 4 OSD share
>> a same SSD) could reach its peak performance (300-400MB/s)
>>
>> Xiaoxi
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Somnath Roy
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:30 PM
>> To: 姚宁; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: RE: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really
>> ruining performance
>>
>> Hi Nicheal,
>> Not only recovery , IMHO the main purpose of ceph journal is to support transaction semantics since XFS doesn't have that. I guess it can't be achieved with pg_log/pg_info.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Somnath
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ??
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:29 PM
>> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: puzzled with the design pattern of ceph journal, really
>> ruining performance
>>
>> Hi, guys
>>
>> I analyze the architecture of the ceph souce code.
>>
>> I know that, in order to keep journal atomic and consistent, the journal write mode should be set with O_DSYNC or called fdatasync() system call after every write operation. However, this kind of operation is really killing the performance as well as achieving high committing latency, even if SSD is used as journal disk. If the SSD has capacitor to keep the data safe when the system crashes, we can set the mount option nobarrier or SSD itself will ignore the FLUSH REQUEST. So the performance would be better.
>>
>> So can it be instead by other strategies?
>> As far as I am concerned, I think the most important part is pg_log and pg_info. It will guides the crashed osd recovery its objects from the peers. Therefore, if we can keep pg_log at a consistent point, we can recovery data without journal. So can we just use an "undo"
>> strategy on pg_log and neglect ceph journal? It will save lots of bandwidth, and also based on the consistent pg_log epoch, we can always recovery data from its peering osd, right? But this will lead to recovery more objects if the osd crash.
>>
>> Nicheal
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html