speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Hello,

last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result. 
(http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)

I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is 
released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.

Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s 
than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.

I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.

Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.

librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 
4k writes

- stopped qemu
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
- start qemu

same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage, 
different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes

What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?

Greets,
Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Gregory Farnum]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@profihost.ag> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>
> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is released.
> Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>
> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s than
> dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>
> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>
> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>
> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 4k
> writes
>
> - stopped qemu
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
> - start qemu
>
> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>
> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?

We're all going to have the same questions now as we did last time,
about what the cluster looks like, what the perfcounters are reporting
on both versions of librados, etc.

Also, please give us the results from Giant rather than Firefly, for
the reasons I mentioned previously.
-Greg

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 10.02.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Gregory Farnum:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@profihost.ag> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>
>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is released.
>> Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>
>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s than
>> dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>>
>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>
>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>
>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 4k
>> writes
>>
>> - stopped qemu
>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>> - start qemu
>>
>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>
>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>
> We're all going to have the same questions now as we did last time,
> about what the cluster looks like, what the perfcounters are reporting
> on both versions of librados, etc.

I try to answer all your questions - not sue how easy this is.

6 Nodes each with:
- Single Intel E5-1650 v3
- 48GB RAM
- 4x 800GB Samsung SSD
- 2x 10Gbit/s bonded storage network

- Client side
- Dual Xeon E5
- 256GB RAM
- 2x 10Gbit/s bonded storage network

Regarding perf counters - i'm willing to make tests. Just tell me how.

> Also, please give us the results from Giant rather than Firefly, for
> the reasons I mentioned previously.

As giant is not a long term release and we have a support contract it's 
not an option to me. Even tough i tried hammer git master three days 
ago. Same results.

Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>
> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>
> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>
> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>
> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>
> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random
> 4k writes
>
> - stopped qemu
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
> - start qemu
>
> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>
> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?

Hi Stephen,

Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:

What happens to single op latencies?
Does enabling/disabling RBD cache have any effect?
How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
Can you get trace data?

Mark

>
> Greets,
> Stefan
> --
> 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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 10.02.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>
>
> On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>
>>
>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
>> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>
>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
>> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>>
>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>
>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>
>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random
>> 4k writes
>>
>> - stopped qemu
>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>> - start qemu
>>
>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>
>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:
>
> What happens to single op latencies?

How to test this?

> Does enabling/disabling RBD cache have any effect?

I've it enabled on both through qemu write back setting.

> How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
> Can you get trace data?

I'm not familiar with trace or perf - what should do exactly?

Stefan

> Mark
>
>>
>> Greets,
>> Stefan
>> --
>> 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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/10/2015 01:13 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>
> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>
>>
>> On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
>>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
>>> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>>
>>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
>>> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>>>
>>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>>
>>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>>
>>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random
>>> 4k writes
>>>
>>> - stopped qemu
>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>> - start qemu
>>>
>>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>>
>>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:
>>
>> What happens to single op latencies?
>
> How to test this?

try your random 4k write test using libaio, direct IO, and iodepth=1. 
Actually it would be interesting to know how it is with higher IO depths 
as well (I assume this is what you are doing now?) Basically I want to 
know if single-op latency changes and whether or not it gets hidden or 
exaggerated with lots of concurrent IO.

>
>> Does enabling/disabling RBD cache have any effect?
>
> I've it enabled on both through qemu write back setting.

It'd be great if you could do the above test both with WB RBD cache and 
with it turned off.

>
>> How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
>> Can you get trace data?
>
> I'm not familiar with trace or perf - what should do exactly?

you may need extra packages.  Basically on VM host, during the test with 
each library you'd do:

sudo perf record -a -g dwarf -F 99
(ctrl+c after a while)
sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt

if you are on a kernel that doesn't have libunwind support:

sudo perf record -a -g
(ctrl+c after a while)
sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt

Then look and see what's different.  This may not catch anything though.

You should also try Greg's suggestion looking at the performance 
counters to see if any interesting differences show up between the runs.

>
> Stefan
>
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>> Greets,
>>> Stefan
>>> --
>>> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 10.02.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Mark Nelson:
> On 02/10/2015 01:13 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>> On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result.
>>>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>>>
>>>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
>>>> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>>>
>>>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
>>>> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>>>>
>>>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>>>
>>>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>>>
>>>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for
>>>> random
>>>> 4k writes
>>>>
>>>> - stopped qemu
>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>> - start qemu
>>>>
>>>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>>>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:
>>>
>>> What happens to single op latencies?
>>
>> How to test this?
>
> try your random 4k write test using libaio, direct IO, and iodepth=1.
> Actually it would be interesting to know how it is with higher IO depths
> as well (I assume this is what you are doing now?) Basically I want to
> know if single-op latency changes and whether or not it gets hidden or
> exaggerated with lots of concurrent IO.

dumpling:
ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/85224K /s] [0 /21.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/79064K /s] [0 /19.8K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

firefly:
ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/55781K /s] [0 /15.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/46055K /s] [0 /11.6K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

>>> Does enabling/disabling RBD cache have any effect?
>>
>> I've it enabled on both through qemu write back setting.
>
> It'd be great if you could do the above test both with WB RBD cache and
> with it turned off.

Test with cache off:

dumpling:
ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/85111K /s] [0 /21.3K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/88984K /s] [0 /22.3K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

firefly:
ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/46479K /s] [0 /11.7K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:

Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done] 
[0K/46019K /s] [0 /11.6K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

>>> How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
>>> Can you get trace data?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with trace or perf - what should do exactly?
>
> you may need extra packages.  Basically on VM host, during the test with
> each library you'd do:
>
> sudo perf record -a -g dwarf -F 99
> (ctrl+c after a while)
> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>
> if you are on a kernel that doesn't have libunwind support:
>
> sudo perf record -a -g
> (ctrl+c after a while)
> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>
> Then look and see what's different.  This may not catch anything though.

Don't have unwind.

Output is only full of hex values.

Stefan

> You should also try Greg's suggestion looking at the performance
> counters to see if any interesting differences show up between the runs.

Where / how to check?

Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/10/2015 02:24 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>> On 02/10/2015 01:13 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real
>>>>> result.
>>>>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
>>>>> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
>>>>> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>>>>
>>>>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for
>>>>> random
>>>>> 4k writes
>>>>>
>>>>> - stopped qemu
>>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>>> - start qemu
>>>>>
>>>>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>>>>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:
>>>>
>>>> What happens to single op latencies?
>>>
>>> How to test this?
>>
>> try your random 4k write test using libaio, direct IO, and iodepth=1.
>> Actually it would be interesting to know how it is with higher IO depths
>> as well (I assume this is what you are doing now?) Basically I want to
>> know if single-op latency changes and whether or not it gets hidden or
>> exaggerated with lots of concurrent IO.
>
> dumpling:
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/85224K /s] [0 /21.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/79064K /s] [0 /19.8K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> firefly:
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/55781K /s] [0 /15.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/46055K /s] [0 /11.6K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>

Sorry, please do this with only 1 thread.  If you can include the 
latency results too that would be great.

>>>> Does enabling/disabling RBD cache have any effect?
>>>
>>> I've it enabled on both through qemu write back setting.
>>
>> It'd be great if you could do the above test both with WB RBD cache and
>> with it turned off.
>
> Test with cache off:
>
> dumpling:
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/85111K /s] [0 /21.3K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/88984K /s] [0 /22.3K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> firefly:
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/46479K /s] [0 /11.7K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>
> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>
> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
> [0K/46019K /s] [0 /11.6K iops] [eta 00m:00s]

So at least so far it appears that this may not be RBD cache related.

>
>>>> How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
>>>> Can you get trace data?
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with trace or perf - what should do exactly?
>>
>> you may need extra packages.  Basically on VM host, during the test with
>> each library you'd do:
>>
>> sudo perf record -a -g dwarf -F 99
>> (ctrl+c after a while)
>> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>>
>> if you are on a kernel that doesn't have libunwind support:
>>
>> sudo perf record -a -g
>> (ctrl+c after a while)
>> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>>
>> Then look and see what's different.  This may not catch anything though.
>
> Don't have unwind.

Too bad, oh well.

> Output is only full of hex values.

You'll at least need the correct debug symbols either compiled into the 
library or available wherever your OS puts them.  Sometimes the perf 
cache needs to be manually edited so they point to the right place, it's 
super annoying.

>
> Stefan
>
>> You should also try Greg's suggestion looking at the performance
>> counters to see if any interesting differences show up between the runs.
>
> Where / how to check?
>
> Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 10.02.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>
>
> On 02/10/2015 02:24 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>> On 02/10/2015 01:13 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 12:55 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real
>>>>>> result.
>>>>>> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is
>>>>>> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s
>>>>>> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to
>>>>>> dumpling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for
>>>>>> random
>>>>>> 4k writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - stopped qemu
>>>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>>>> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/
>>>>>> - start qemu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage,
>>>>>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just off the top of my head, some questions to investigate:
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens to single op latencies?
>>>>
>>>> How to test this?
>>>
>>> try your random 4k write test using libaio, direct IO, and iodepth=1.
>>> Actually it would be interesting to know how it is with higher IO depths
>>> as well (I assume this is what you are doing now?) Basically I want to
>>> know if single-op latency changes and whether or not it gets hidden or
>>> exaggerated with lots of concurrent IO.
>>
>> dumpling:
>> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>>
>> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
>> [0K/85224K /s] [0 /21.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>
>> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>>
>> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
>> [0K/79064K /s] [0 /19.8K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>
>> firefly:
>> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=32 with 32 threads:
>>
>> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
>> [0K/55781K /s] [0 /15.4K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>
>> ioengine=libaio and iodepth=1 with 32 threads:
>>
>> Jobs: 32 (f=32): [wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww] [100.0% done]
>> [0K/46055K /s] [0 /11.6K iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>
>
> Sorry, please do this with only 1 thread.  If you can include the
> latency results too that would be great.

Sorry here again.

Cache on:

dumpling:
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=1
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/42892K /s] [0 /10.8K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3203
   write: io=1273.1MB, bw=43483KB/s, iops=10870 , runt= 30001msec
     slat (usec): min=5 , max=183 , avg= 8.99, stdev= 1.78
     clat (usec): min=0 , max=6378 , avg=81.15, stdev=44.09
      lat (usec): min=59 , max=6390 , avg=90.35, stdev=44.22
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[   59],  5.00th=[   62], 10.00th=[   64], 20.00th=[   66],
      | 30.00th=[   69], 40.00th=[   71], 50.00th=[   74], 60.00th=[   80],
      | 70.00th=[   87], 80.00th=[   95], 90.00th=[  105], 95.00th=[  114],
      | 99.00th=[  135], 99.50th=[  145], 99.90th=[  179], 99.95th=[  237],
      | 99.99th=[ 2320]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=36176, max=46816, per=99.96%, avg=43465.49, 
stdev=2169.33
     lat (usec) : 2=0.01%, 4=0.01%, 20=0.01%, 50=0.01%, 100=85.24%
     lat (usec) : 250=14.71%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 2=0.01%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=2.95%, sys=12.29%, ctx=329519, majf=0, minf=133
   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=0/w=326130/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=1273.1MB, aggrb=43482KB/s, minb=43482KB/s, maxb=43482KB/s, 
mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=166/325241, merge=0/0, ticks=8/24624, in_queue=24492, 
util=81.64%


firefly:
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=1
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/44588K /s] [0 /11.2K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2904
   write: io=1212.1MB, bw=41401KB/s, iops=10350 , runt= 30001msec
     slat (usec): min=5 , max=464 , avg= 8.95, stdev= 2.34
     clat (usec): min=0 , max=4410 , avg=85.81, stdev=41.82
      lat (usec): min=59 , max=4418 , avg=94.96, stdev=41.97
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[   59],  5.00th=[   63], 10.00th=[   65], 20.00th=[   68],
      | 30.00th=[   72], 40.00th=[   76], 50.00th=[   80], 60.00th=[   85],
      | 70.00th=[   94], 80.00th=[  102], 90.00th=[  112], 95.00th=[  122],
      | 99.00th=[  145], 99.50th=[  155], 99.90th=[  189], 99.95th=[  239],
      | 99.99th=[ 2192]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=34352, max=45992, per=99.91%, avg=41363.80, 
stdev=3314.63
     lat (usec) : 2=0.01%, 50=0.01%, 100=77.26%, 250=22.69%, 500=0.02%
     lat (usec) : 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 2=0.01%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=2.92%, sys=11.63%, ctx=313889, majf=0, minf=133
   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=0/w=310521/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=1212.1MB, aggrb=41401KB/s, minb=41401KB/s, maxb=41401KB/s, 
mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=166/309726, merge=0/0, ticks=16/24772, in_queue=24688, 
util=82.30%

sorry the old cache off results were wrong here are new ones also with 
only one thread:

dumpling:
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/2140K /s] [0 /535  iops] [eta 00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2906
   write: io=64424KB, bw=2147.5KB/s, iops=536 , runt= 30001msec
     slat (usec): min=14 , max=848 , avg=30.27, stdev= 8.70
     clat (usec): min=914 , max=74110 , avg=1826.25, stdev=604.49
      lat (usec): min=1395 , max=74138 , avg=1857.26, stdev=604.48
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[ 1592],  5.00th=[ 1656], 10.00th=[ 1688], 20.00th=[ 1736],
      | 30.00th=[ 1768], 40.00th=[ 1784], 50.00th=[ 1816], 60.00th=[ 1832],
      | 70.00th=[ 1864], 80.00th=[ 1896], 90.00th=[ 1928], 95.00th=[ 1960],
      | 99.00th=[ 2064], 99.50th=[ 2384], 99.90th=[ 5024], 99.95th=[ 5600],
      | 99.99th=[11712]
     bw (KB/s)  : min= 1768, max= 2240, per=100.00%, avg=2149.53, 
stdev=56.30
     lat (usec) : 1000=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 2=97.67%, 4=2.11%, 10=0.20%, 20=0.01%, 100=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=0.72%, sys=2.12%, ctx=19289, majf=0, minf=133
   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=0/w=16106/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=64424KB, aggrb=2147KB/s, minb=2147KB/s, maxb=2147KB/s, 
mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=168/16067, merge=0/0, ticks=164/29004, in_queue=29144, 
util=96.93%

firefly:

file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=1
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/2141K /s] [0 /535  iops] [eta 00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3034
   write: io=63100KB, bw=2103.3KB/s, iops=525 , runt= 30001msec
     slat (usec): min=17 , max=388 , avg=33.26, stdev= 6.55
     clat (usec): min=1392 , max=54698 , avg=1862.25, stdev=478.79
      lat (usec): min=1507 , max=54716 , avg=1896.28, stdev=478.69
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[ 1624],  5.00th=[ 1688], 10.00th=[ 1720], 20.00th=[ 1768],
      | 30.00th=[ 1800], 40.00th=[ 1832], 50.00th=[ 1848], 60.00th=[ 1880],
      | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1928], 90.00th=[ 1960], 95.00th=[ 1992],
      | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2512], 99.90th=[ 5344], 99.95th=[ 5984],
      | 99.99th=[11840]
     bw (KB/s)  : min= 1760, max= 2160, per=100.00%, avg=2104.68, 
stdev=49.36
     lat (msec) : 2=95.18%, 4=4.57%, 10=0.23%, 20=0.01%, 100=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=0.88%, sys=2.09%, ctx=18938, majf=0, minf=133
   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=0/w=15775/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=63100KB, aggrb=2103KB/s, minb=2103KB/s, maxb=2103KB/s, 
mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=170/15740, merge=0/0, ticks=268/28856, in_queue=29116, 
util=96.45%

>>>>> How's CPU usage? (Does perf report show anything useful?)
>>>>> Can you get trace data?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with trace or perf - what should do exactly?
>>>
>>> you may need extra packages.  Basically on VM host, during the test with
>>> each library you'd do:
>>>
>>> sudo perf record -a -g dwarf -F 99
>>> (ctrl+c after a while)
>>> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>>>
>>> if you are on a kernel that doesn't have libunwind support:
>>>
>>> sudo perf record -a -g
>>> (ctrl+c after a while)
>>> sudo perf report --stdio > foo.txt
>>>
>>> Then look and see what's different.  This may not catch anything though.
>>
>> Don't have unwind.
>
> Too bad, oh well.
>
>> Output is only full of hex values.
>
> You'll at least need the correct debug symbols either compiled into the
> library or available wherever your OS puts them.  Sometimes the perf
> cache needs to be manually edited so they point to the right place, it's
> super annoying.

mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?

Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>
> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?

Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.

I've summarized your results here:

1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)

		IOPS		Latency
		wb on	wb off	wb on	wb off
dumpling	10870	536	~100us	~2ms
firefly		10350	525	~100us	~2ms

So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's 
see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).

Mark

>
> Stefan
> --
> 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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>
>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>
> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>
> I've summarized your results here:
>
> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>
>          IOPS        Latency
>          wb on    wb off    wb on    wb off
> dumpling    10870    536    ~100us    ~2ms
> firefly        10350    525    ~100us    ~2ms
>
> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's
> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).


dumpling:

file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
   write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
     slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
     clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
      lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 1672],
      | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 1832],
      | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 2128],
      | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 5344],
      | 99.99th=[ 7072]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
stdev=4783.25
     lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
     lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
   cpu          : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
 >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
 >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
util=98.73%

firefly:

file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
   write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
     slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
     clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
      lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[ 1608],  5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 1832],
      | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 2064],
      | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 2896],
      | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 6304],
      | 99.99th=[ 6752]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
stdev=8302.27
     lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
   cpu          : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
 >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
 >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
util=98.96%

Stefan

> Mark
>
>>
>> Stefan
>> --
>> 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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>
> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>
>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>
>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>
>> I've summarized your results here:
>>
>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>
>>          IOPS        Latency
>>          wb on    wb off    wb on    wb off
>> dumpling    10870    536    ~100us    ~2ms
>> firefly        10350    525    ~100us    ~2ms
>>
>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's
>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>
>
> dumpling:
>
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> 2.0.8
> Starting 1 thread
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
> 00m:00s]
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>    write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>      clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>       lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>      clat percentiles (usec):
>       |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 1672],
>       | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 1832],
>       | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 2128],
>       | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 5344],
>       | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>      bw (KB/s)  : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
> stdev=4783.25
>      lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>      lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>    cpu          : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>  >=64=0.0%
>       issued    : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
>    sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
> util=98.73%
>
> firefly:
>
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> 2.0.8
> Starting 1 thread
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
> 00m:00s]
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>    write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>      clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>       lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>      clat percentiles (usec):
>       |  1.00th=[ 1608],  5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 1832],
>       | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 2064],
>       | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 2896],
>       | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 6304],
>       | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>      bw (KB/s)  : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
> stdev=8302.27
>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>      lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>    cpu          : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>  >=64=0.0%
>       issued    : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
>    sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
> util=98.96%
>

Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
(ie contention?).  Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>
>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>
>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>
>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>
>>>          IOPS        Latency
>>>          wb on    wb off    wb on    wb off
>>> dumpling    10870    536    ~100us    ~2ms
>>> firefly        10350    525    ~100us    ~2ms
>>>
>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's
>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>
>>
>> dumpling:
>>
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> 2.0.8
>> Starting 1 thread
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>> 00m:00s]
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>    write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>      clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>       lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>       |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>> 1672],
>>       | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>> 1832],
>>       | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>> 2128],
>>       | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>> 5344],
>>       | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>> stdev=4783.25
>>      lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>>      lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>    cpu          : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>  >=64=0.0%
>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>    WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>    sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>> util=98.73%
>>
>> firefly:
>>
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> 2.0.8
>> Starting 1 thread
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>> 00m:00s]
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>    write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>      clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>       lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>       |  1.00th=[ 1608],  5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>> 1832],
>>       | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>> 2064],
>>       | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>> 2896],
>>       | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>> 6304],
>>       | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>> stdev=8302.27
>>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>      lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>    cpu          : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>  >=64=0.0%
>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>    WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>    sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>> util=98.96%
>>
>
> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
> (ie contention?).  Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?

here again without rbd cache:

dumpling:
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
   write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
     slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
     clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
      lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[  660],  5.00th=[  780], 10.00th=[  876], 20.00th=[ 1032],
      | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384],
      | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960],
      | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888],
      | 99.99th=[18816]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
stdev=7973.92
     lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
     lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
 >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
 >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
util=99.93%


firefly:

  fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
--thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
--name=file1
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
2.0.8
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
00m:00s]
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
   write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
     slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
     clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
      lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
     clat percentiles (usec):
      |  1.00th=[  676],  5.00th=[  804], 10.00th=[  916], 20.00th=[ 1096],
      | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448],
      | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736],
      | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656],
      | 99.99th=[18560]
     bw (KB/s)  : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
stdev=7234.98
     lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
     lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
     lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
   cpu          : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
 >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
 >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec

Disk stats (read/write):
   sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
util=99.93%

Stefan

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

Hi All,

do we have client cpu benchmark between dumpling vs firefly.

As qemu only use 1 thread, It's quite possible that cpu increase inside librbd in firefly,

give use lower iops.


(See my other discussion about librbd using 4x cpu than krbd)

----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Février 2015 06:42:21
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>> 
>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>> 
>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>> 
>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>> 
>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>> 
>>> IOPS Latency 
>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>> 
>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>> 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>> 1672], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>> 1832], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>> 2128], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>> 5344], 
>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>> stdev=4783.25 
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>> >=64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>> util=98.73% 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>> 1832], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>> 2064], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>> 2896], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>> 6304], 
>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>> stdev=8302.27 
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>> >=64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>> util=98.96% 
>> 
> 
> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 

here again without rbd cache: 

dumpling: 
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
2.0.8 
Starting 1 thread 
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
00m:00s] 
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
clat percentiles (usec): 
| 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
| 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
| 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
| 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
| 99.99th=[18816] 
bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
stdev=7973.92 
lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>=64=0.0% 
issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 

Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 

Disk stats (read/write): 
sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
util=99.93% 


firefly: 

fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
--thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
--name=file1 
file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
2.0.8 
Starting 1 thread 
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
00m:00s] 
file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
clat percentiles (usec): 
| 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
| 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
| 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
| 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
| 99.99th=[18560] 
bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
stdev=7234.98 
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>=64=0.0% 
issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 

Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 

Disk stats (read/write): 
sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
util=99.93% 

Stefan 

-- 
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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Hi Mark,

what's next?

I've this test cluster only for 2 more days.

Here some perf Details:

dumpling:
  12,65%  libc-2.13.so             [.] 0x79000
   2,86%  libc-2.13.so             [.] malloc
   2,80%  kvm                      [.] 0xb59c5
   2,59%  libc-2.13.so             [.] free
   2,35%  [kernel]                 [k] __schedule
   2,16%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock
   1,92%  [kernel]                 [k] __switch_to
   1,58%  [kernel]                 [k] lapic_next_deadline
   1,09%  [kernel]                 [k] update_sd_lb_stats
   1,08%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
   0,91%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel
   0,91%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
   0,87%  [kernel]                 [k] resched_task
   0,72%  [kernel]                 [k] cpu_startup_entry
   0,71%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] crush_hash32_3
   0,66%  [kernel]                 [k] leave_mm
   0,65%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
   0,64%  [kernel]                 [k] idle_cpu
   0,62%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
   0,59%  [kernel]                 [k] try_to_wake_up
   0,56%  [kernel]                 [k] wake_futex
   0,50%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()

firefly:
  12,56%  libc-2.13.so             [.] 0x7905d
   2,82%  libc-2.13.so             [.] malloc
   2,64%  libc-2.13.so             [.] free
   2,61%  kvm                      [.] 0x34322f
   2,33%  [kernel]                 [k] __schedule
   2,14%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock
   1,83%  [kernel]                 [k] __switch_to
   1,62%  [kernel]                 [k] lapic_next_deadline
   1,17%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
   1,09%  [kernel]                 [k] update_sd_lb_stats
   1,08%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
   0,85%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
   0,77%  [kernel]                 [k] resched_task
   0,74%  librbd.so.1.0.0          [.] 0x71b73
   0,72%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
   0,68%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] crush_hash32_3
   0,67%  [kernel]                 [k] idle_cpu
   0,65%  [kernel]                 [k] leave_mm
   0,65%  [kernel]                 [k] cpu_startup_entry
   0,59%  [kernel]                 [k] try_to_wake_up
   0,51%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
   0,51%  [kernel]                 [k] wake_futex

Stefan

Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
>
> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>>
>>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>>
>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>>
>>>>          IOPS        Latency
>>>>          wb on    wb off    wb on    wb off
>>>> dumpling    10870    536    ~100us    ~2ms
>>>> firefly        10350    525    ~100us    ~2ms
>>>>
>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's
>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>
>>>
>>> dumpling:
>>>
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>>    write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>>      clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>>       lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>>       |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>>> 1672],
>>>       | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>>> 1832],
>>>       | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>>> 2128],
>>>       | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>>> 5344],
>>>       | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>>> stdev=4783.25
>>>      lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>>>      lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>>    cpu          : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>  >=64=0.0%
>>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>    WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>    sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>>> util=98.73%
>>>
>>> firefly:
>>>
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>>    write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>>      clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>>       lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>>       |  1.00th=[ 1608],  5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>>> 1832],
>>>       | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>>> 2064],
>>>       | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>>> 2896],
>>>       | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>>> 6304],
>>>       | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>>> stdev=8302.27
>>>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>>      lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>>    cpu          : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>  >=64=0.0%
>>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>    WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>    sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>>> util=98.96%
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
>> (ie contention?).  Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>
> here again without rbd cache:
>
> dumpling:
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> 2.0.8
> Starting 1 thread
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta
> 00m:00s]
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
>    write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
>      clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
>       lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
>      clat percentiles (usec):
>       |  1.00th=[  660],  5.00th=[  780], 10.00th=[  876], 20.00th=[ 1032],
>       | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384],
>       | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960],
>       | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888],
>       | 99.99th=[18816]
>      bw (KB/s)  : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19,
> stdev=7973.92
>      lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
>      lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
>      lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>    cpu          : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>  >=64=0.0%
>       issued    : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s,
> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
>    sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128,
> util=99.93%
>
>
> firefly:
>
>   fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1
> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting
> --name=file1
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> 2.0.8
> Starting 1 thread
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta
> 00m:00s]
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
>    write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
>      clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
>       lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
>      clat percentiles (usec):
>       |  1.00th=[  676],  5.00th=[  804], 10.00th=[  916], 20.00th=[ 1096],
>       | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448],
>       | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736],
>       | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656],
>       | 99.99th=[18560]
>      bw (KB/s)  : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88,
> stdev=7234.98
>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
>      lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
>      lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>    cpu          : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>  >=64=0.0%
>       issued    : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s,
> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
>    sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560,
> util=99.93%
>
> Stefan
>

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

Hi Stefan,

I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host,
without the qemu layer.

the perf reports don't seem to be too much different.
do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage)


----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Hi Mark, 

what's next? 

I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 

Here some perf Details: 

dumpling: 
12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 

firefly: 
12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 

Stefan 

Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
> 
> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>> 
>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>> 
>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>> 
>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>> 
>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>> 
>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> dumpling: 
>>> 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1672], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 1832], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2128], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>> 5344], 
>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> >=64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>> util=98.73% 
>>> 
>>> firefly: 
>>> 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1832], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 2064], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2896], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>> 6304], 
>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> >=64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>> util=98.96% 
>>> 
>> 
>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
> 
> here again without rbd cache: 
> 
> dumpling: 
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
> 2.0.8 
> Starting 1 thread 
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
> 00m:00s] 
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
> clat percentiles (usec): 
> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
> | 99.99th=[18816] 
> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
> stdev=7973.92 
> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
> >=64=0.0% 
> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
> 
> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
> 
> Disk stats (read/write): 
> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
> util=99.93% 
> 
> 
> firefly: 
> 
> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
> --name=file1 
> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
> 2.0.8 
> Starting 1 thread 
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
> 00m:00s] 
> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
> clat percentiles (usec): 
> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
> | 99.99th=[18560] 
> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
> stdev=7234.98 
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
> >=64=0.0% 
> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
> 
> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
> 
> Disk stats (read/write): 
> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
> util=99.93% 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
-- 
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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Hi Mark,
  Hi Alexandre,

Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host,
> without the qemu layer.
> 
> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different.
> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage)

the idea to use fio-librbd was very good.

I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it
with qemu.

Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper
into it.

Greets,
Stefan

> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
> 
> Hi Mark, 
> 
> what's next? 
> 
> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
> 
> Here some perf Details: 
> 
> dumpling: 
> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 
> firefly: 
> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>
>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>
>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1672], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2128], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 5344], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>
>>>> firefly: 
>>>>
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 2064], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2896], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 6304], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>>
>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>
>> dumpling: 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>> stdev=7973.92 
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>> util=99.93% 
>>
>>
>> firefly: 
>>
>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>> --name=file1 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>> stdev=7234.98 
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>> util=99.93% 
>>
>> Stefan 
>>
--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Mark Nelson]

On 02/16/2015 08:50 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>    Hi Alexandre,
>
> Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host,
>> without the qemu layer.
>>
>> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different.
>> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage)
>
> the idea to use fio-librbd was very good.
>
> I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it
> with qemu.
>
> Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper
> into it.

Interesting development!  FWIW, I've been doing some testing with 
librados on dumpling, firefly, and hammer.  Not RBD numbers, but adds a 
bit of info to the greater puzzle.

Hoping I should have something written up this week.

>
> Greets,
> Stefan
>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> what's next?
>>
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days.
>>
>> Here some perf Details:
>>
>> dumpling:
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>>
>> firefly:
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
>>>
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOPS Latency
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dumpling:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1672],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2128],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 5344],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>>>>> stdev=4783.25
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>>>>> util=98.73%
>>>>>
>>>>> firefly:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 2064],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2896],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 6304],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>>>>> stdev=8302.27
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>>>>> util=98.96%
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>>>
>>> here again without rbd cache:
>>>
>>> dumpling:
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888],
>>> | 99.99th=[18816]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19,
>>> stdev=7973.92
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s,
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>>
>>> firefly:
>>>
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting
>>> --name=file1
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656],
>>> | 99.99th=[18560]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88,
>>> stdev=7234.98
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s,
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
> --
> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

What is you fio command line ?

do you test with numjobs > 1 ?


(I think under qemu, you can use any numjobs value, as it's use only 1 thread, is equal to numjobs=1)


----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 15:50:56
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Hi Mark, 
Hi Alexandre, 

Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER: 
> Hi Stefan, 
> 
> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host, 
> without the qemu layer. 
> 
> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different. 
> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage) 

the idea to use fio-librbd was very good. 

I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it 
with qemu. 

Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper 
into it. 

Greets, 
Stefan 

> ----- Mail original ----- 
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45 
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
> 
> Hi Mark, 
> 
> what's next? 
> 
> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
> 
> Here some perf Details: 
> 
> dumpling: 
> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 
> firefly: 
> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>> 
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>> 
>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1672], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2128], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 5344], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>> 
>>>> firefly: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 2064], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2896], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 6304], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>> 
>> here again without rbd cache: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>> stdev=7973.92 
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 
>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>> --name=file1 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>> stdev=7234.98 
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 

--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 16.02.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
> What is you fio command line ?

fio rbd or fio under qemu?

> do you test with numjobs > 1 ?

Both.

> (I think under qemu, you can use any numjobs value, as it's use only 1 thread, is equal to numjobs=1)

numjobs > 1 gives also under qemu better results.

Stefan


>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 15:50:56
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
>
> Hi Mark,
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host,
>> without the qemu layer.
>>
>> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different.
>> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage)
>
> the idea to use fio-librbd was very good.
>
> I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it
> with qemu.
>
> Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper
> into it.
>
> Greets,
> Stefan
>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> what's next?
>>
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days.
>>
>> Here some perf Details:
>>
>> dumpling:
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>>
>> firefly:
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
>>>
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOPS Latency
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dumpling:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1672],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2128],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 5344],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>>>>> stdev=4783.25
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>>>>> util=98.73%
>>>>>
>>>>> firefly:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 2064],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2896],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 6304],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>>>>> stdev=8302.27
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>>>>> util=98.96%
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>>>
>>> here again without rbd cache:
>>>
>>> dumpling:
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888],
>>> | 99.99th=[18816]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19,
>>> stdev=7973.92
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s,
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>>
>>> firefly:
>>>
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting
>>> --name=file1
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656],
>>> | 99.99th=[18560]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88,
>>> stdev=7234.98
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s,
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>
> --
> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>fio rbd or fio under qemu? 

both ;)


>> (I think under qemu, you can use any numjobs value, as it's use only 1 thread, is equal to numjobs=1) 
>
>numjobs > 1 gives also under qemu better results. 

I think under qemu, the fio process can scale across vcpus, but not the io thread itself.
So maybe numjobs > 1 under qemu help a little.

how many iops with 
 fio-rbd vs qemu fio  with numjob=1

and
 fio-rbd vs qemu fio  with numjob=4

for example ?

(I think it should scale better with fio-rbd)



----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 20:10:16
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Am 16.02.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER: 
> What is you fio command line ? 

fio rbd or fio under qemu? 

> do you test with numjobs > 1 ? 

Both. 

> (I think under qemu, you can use any numjobs value, as it's use only 1 thread, is equal to numjobs=1) 

numjobs > 1 gives also under qemu better results. 

Stefan 


> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com> 
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 15:50:56 
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
> 
> Hi Mark, 
> Hi Alexandre, 
> 
> Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER: 
>> Hi Stefan, 
>> 
>> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host, 
>> without the qemu layer. 
>> 
>> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different. 
>> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage) 
> 
> the idea to use fio-librbd was very good. 
> 
> I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it 
> with qemu. 
> 
> Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper 
> into it. 
> 
> Greets, 
> Stefan 
> 
>> ----- Mail original ----- 
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45 
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
>> 
>> Hi Mark, 
>> 
>> what's next? 
>> 
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
>> 
>> Here some perf Details: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>> 
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1672], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2128], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 5344], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>> 
>>>>> firefly: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2064], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2896], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 6304], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>>> 
>>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>> 
>>> dumpling: 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>>> stdev=7973.92 
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> firefly: 
>>> 
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>>> --name=file1 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>>> stdev=7234.98 
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> Stefan 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

I also thinked about 1 thing

fio-lirbd use the rbd_cache value from ceph.conf.

and qemu change the value if cache=none or cache=writeback in qemu conf.

So, verify that too.



I'm thinked of this old bug with cache

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9513
It was a bug in giant, but tracker said also dumpling and firefly (but no commit for them)


But the original bug was

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9854
and I'm not sure it's already released





----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 15:50:56
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Hi Mark, 
Hi Alexandre, 

Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER: 
> Hi Stefan, 
> 
> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host, 
> without the qemu layer. 
> 
> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different. 
> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage) 

the idea to use fio-librbd was very good. 

I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it 
with qemu. 

Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper 
into it. 

Greets, 
Stefan 

> ----- Mail original ----- 
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45 
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
> 
> Hi Mark, 
> 
> what's next? 
> 
> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
> 
> Here some perf Details: 
> 
> dumpling: 
> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 
> firefly: 
> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>> 
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>> 
>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1672], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2128], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 5344], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>> 
>>>> firefly: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 2064], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2896], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 6304], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>> 
>> here again without rbd cache: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888], 
>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>> stdev=7973.92 
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 
>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>> --name=file1 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656], 
>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>> stdev=7234.98 
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>> =64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 
--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 16.02.2015 um 17:45 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
> I also thinked about 1 thing
>
> fio-lirbd use the rbd_cache value from ceph.conf.
>
> and qemu change the value if cache=none or cache=writeback in qemu conf.
>
> So, verify that too.
>
>
>
> I'm thinked of this old bug with cache
>
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9513
> It was a bug in giant, but tracker said also dumpling and firefly (but no commit for them)
>
>
> But the original bug was
>
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9854
> and I'm not sure it's already released
>

No it's not in latest firefly nor in latest dumpling. But it's in latest 
git for both.

But it looks read related not write related - isn't it?

Stefan

>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 15:50:56
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
>
> Hi Mark,
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> Am 16.02.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> I could be interesting to see if you have the same speed decrease with fio-librbd on the host,
>> without the qemu layer.
>>
>> the perf reports don't seem to be too much different.
>> do you have the same cpu usage ? (check qemu process usage)
>
> the idea to use fio-librbd was very good.
>
> I cannot reproduce the behaviour using fio-rbd. I can just reproduce it
> with qemu.
>
> Very strange. So please ignore me for the moment. I'll try to dig deeper
> into it.
>
> Greets,
> Stefan
>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Février 2015 19:40:45
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> what's next?
>>
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days.
>>
>> Here some perf Details:
>>
>> dumpling:
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>>
>> firefly:
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
>>>
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOPS Latency
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dumpling:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1672],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2128],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 5344],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>>>>> stdev=4783.25
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.53%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>>>>> util=98.73%
>>>>>
>>>>> firefly:
>>>>>
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> 2.0.8
>>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>>>>> 1832],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>>>>> 2064],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>>>>> 2896],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>>>>> 6304],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>>>>> stdev=8302.27
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>>>>> util=98.96%
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>>>
>>> here again without rbd cache:
>>>
>>> dumpling:
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 1032],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 1384],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 2960],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 99.95th=[13888],
>>> | 99.99th=[18816]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19,
>>> stdev=7973.92
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s,
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>>
>>> firefly:
>>>
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting
>>> --name=file1
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> 2.0.8
>>> Starting 1 thread
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta
>>> 00m:00s]
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 1096],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 1448],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 2736],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 99.95th=[14656],
>>> | 99.99th=[18560]
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88,
>>> stdev=7234.98
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s,
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560,
>>> util=99.93%
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe]

I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly.

This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
while running dumpling...

Greets,
Stefan
Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
> Hi Mark,
>
> what's next?
>
> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days.
>
> Here some perf Details:
>
> dumpling:
>   12,65%  libc-2.13.so             [.] 0x79000
>    2,86%  libc-2.13.so             [.] malloc
>    2,80%  kvm                      [.] 0xb59c5
>    2,59%  libc-2.13.so             [.] free
>    2,35%  [kernel]                 [k] __schedule
>    2,16%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock
>    1,92%  [kernel]                 [k] __switch_to
>    1,58%  [kernel]                 [k] lapic_next_deadline
>    1,09%  [kernel]                 [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>    1,08%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>    0,91%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel
>    0,91%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>    0,87%  [kernel]                 [k] resched_task
>    0,72%  [kernel]                 [k] cpu_startup_entry
>    0,71%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] crush_hash32_3
>    0,66%  [kernel]                 [k] leave_mm
>    0,65%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>    0,64%  [kernel]                 [k] idle_cpu
>    0,62%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>    0,59%  [kernel]                 [k] try_to_wake_up
>    0,56%  [kernel]                 [k] wake_futex
>    0,50%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>
> firefly:
>   12,56%  libc-2.13.so             [.] 0x7905d
>    2,82%  libc-2.13.so             [.] malloc
>    2,64%  libc-2.13.so             [.] free
>    2,61%  kvm                      [.] 0x34322f
>    2,33%  [kernel]                 [k] __schedule
>    2,14%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock
>    1,83%  [kernel]                 [k] __switch_to
>    1,62%  [kernel]                 [k] lapic_next_deadline
>    1,17%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>    1,09%  [kernel]                 [k] update_sd_lb_stats
>    1,08%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
>    0,85%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
>    0,77%  [kernel]                 [k] resched_task
>    0,74%  librbd.so.1.0.0          [.] 0x71b73
>    0,72%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
>    0,68%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] crush_hash32_3
>    0,67%  [kernel]                 [k] idle_cpu
>    0,65%  [kernel]                 [k] leave_mm
>    0,65%  [kernel]                 [k] cpu_startup_entry
>    0,59%  [kernel]                 [k] try_to_wake_up
>    0,51%  librados.so.2.0.0        [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
>    0,51%  [kernel]                 [k] wake_futex
>
> Stefan
>
> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe:
>>
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson:
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still
>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've summarized your results here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1)
>>>>>
>>>>>          IOPS        Latency
>>>>>          wb on    wb off    wb on    wb off
>>>>> dumpling    10870    536    ~100us    ~2ms
>>>>> firefly        10350    525    ~100us    ~2ms
>>>>>
>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer.  Now let's
>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dumpling:
>>>>
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> 2.0.8
>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta
>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011
>>>>    write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec
>>>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30
>>>>      clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43
>>>>       lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52
>>>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>       |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[
>>>> 1672],
>>>>       | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[
>>>> 1832],
>>>>       | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[
>>>> 2128],
>>>>       | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[
>>>> 5344],
>>>>       | 99.99th=[ 7072]
>>>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27,
>>>> stdev=4783.25
>>>>      lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%,
>>>> 1000=0.53%
>>>>      lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13%
>>>>    cpu          : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>  >=64=0.0%
>>>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>    WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s,
>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>    sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064,
>>>> util=98.73%
>>>>
>>>> firefly:
>>>>
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> 2.0.8
>>>> Starting 1 thread
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta
>>>> 00m:00s]
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982
>>>>    write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec
>>>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32
>>>>      clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30
>>>>       lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61
>>>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>       |  1.00th=[ 1608],  5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[
>>>> 1832],
>>>>       | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[
>>>> 2064],
>>>>       | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[
>>>> 2896],
>>>>       | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[
>>>> 6304],
>>>>       | 99.99th=[ 6752]
>>>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92,
>>>> stdev=8302.27
>>>>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01%
>>>>      lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26%
>>>>    cpu          : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133
>>>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>>>  >=64=0.0%
>>>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>    WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s,
>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>    sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696,
>>>> util=98.96%
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases
>>> (ie contention?).  Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>>
>> here again without rbd cache:
>>
>> dumpling:
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> 2.0.8
>> Starting 1 thread
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta
>> 00m:00s]
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000
>>    write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec
>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25
>>      clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57
>>       lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44
>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>       |  1.00th=[  660],  5.00th=[  780], 10.00th=[  876], 20.00th=[
>> 1032],
>>       | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[
>> 1384],
>>       | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[
>> 2960],
>>       | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712],
>> 99.95th=[13888],
>>       | 99.99th=[18816]
>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19,
>> stdev=7973.92
>>      lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40%
>>      lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01%
>>      lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>    cpu          : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133
>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>  >=64=0.0%
>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>    WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s,
>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>    sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128,
>> util=99.93%
>>
>>
>> firefly:
>>
>>   fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1
>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting
>> --name=file1
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> 2.0.8
>> Starting 1 thread
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta
>> 00m:00s]
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970
>>    write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec
>>      slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17
>>      clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74
>>       lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59
>>      clat percentiles (usec):
>>       |  1.00th=[  676],  5.00th=[  804], 10.00th=[  916], 20.00th=[
>> 1096],
>>       | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[
>> 1448],
>>       | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[
>> 2736],
>>       | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096],
>> 99.95th=[14656],
>>       | 99.99th=[18560]
>>      bw (KB/s)  : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88,
>> stdev=7234.98
>>      lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38%
>>      lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01%
>>      lat (msec) : 100=0.01%
>>    cpu          : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133
>>    IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%,
>>  >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
>>  >=64=0.0%
>>       issued    : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>    WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s,
>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>    sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560,
>> util=99.93%
>>
>> Stefan
>>

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>>while running dumpling...

Is it for write  only ?
or do you see same decrease for read too ?


----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 22:22:01
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly. 

This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
while running dumpling... 

Greets, 
Stefan 
Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
> Hi Mark, 
> 
> what's next? 
> 
> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
> 
> Here some perf Details: 
> 
> dumpling: 
> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 
> firefly: 
> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>> 
>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>> 
>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1672], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2128], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 5344], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 
>>>> 1000=0.53% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> >=64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>> 
>>>> firefly: 
>>>> 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1832], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 2064], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2896], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>> 6304], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> >=64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>> 
>> here again without rbd cache: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 
>> 1032], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 
>> 1384], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 
>> 2960], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 
>> 99.95th=[13888], 
>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>> stdev=7973.92 
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>> >=64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 
>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>> --name=file1 
>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>> 2.0.8 
>> Starting 1 thread 
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>> 00m:00s] 
>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 
>> 1096], 
>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 
>> 1448], 
>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 
>> 2736], 
>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 
>> 99.95th=[14656], 
>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>> stdev=7234.98 
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>> >=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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>> >=64=0.0% 
>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>> 
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>> 
>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>> util=99.93% 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 
-- 
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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Am 16.02.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>:

>>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>>> while running dumpling...
> 
> Is it for write  only ?
> or do you see same decrease for read too

Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 

Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220%

Stefan

> ?
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 22:22:01
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
> 
> I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly. 
> 
> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
> while running dumpling... 
> 
> Greets, 
> Stefan 
>> Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>> Hi Mark, 
>> 
>> what's next? 
>> 
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
>> 
>> Here some perf Details: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>> 
>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1672], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2128], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 5344], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 
>>>>> 1000=0.53% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>> 
>>>>> firefly: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2064], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2896], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 6304], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>>> util=98.96%
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled?
>>> 
>>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>> 
>>> dumpling: 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1032], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 1384], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2960], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 
>>> 99.95th=[13888], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>>> stdev=7973.92 
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> firefly: 
>>> 
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>>> --name=file1 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1096], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 1448], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2736], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 
>>> 99.95th=[14656], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>>> stdev=7234.98 
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> Stefan
> -- 
> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 
>>
>>Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220%

Oh yes, indeed, that's what I think too. (and more cpu -> less ios in qemu because of single iothread)


I think that perf report should show the difference, this is strange that you have almost same result in your perf reports.

 


----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 23:08:37
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Am 16.02.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>: 

>>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>>> while running dumpling... 
> 
> Is it for write only ? 
> or do you see same decrease for read too 

Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 

Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220% 

Stefan 

> ? 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 22:22:01 
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
> 
> I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly. 
> 
> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
> while running dumpling... 
> 
> Greets, 
> Stefan 
>> Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>> Hi Mark, 
>> 
>> what's next? 
>> 
>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
>> 
>> Here some perf Details: 
>> 
>> dumpling: 
>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 
>> firefly: 
>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>> 
>> Stefan 
>> 
>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>> 
>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1672], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2128], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 5344], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 
>>>>> 1000=0.53% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>> 
>>>>> firefly: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2064], 
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>> 2896], 
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>> 6304], 
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>>> 
>>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>> 
>>> dumpling: 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1032], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 1384], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2960], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 
>>> 99.95th=[13888], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>>> stdev=7973.92 
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> firefly: 
>>> 
>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>>> --name=file1 
>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>> 2.0.8 
>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>>> 00m:00s] 
>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 
>>> 1096], 
>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 
>>> 1448], 
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 
>>> 2736], 
>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 
>>> 99.95th=[14656], 
>>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>>> stdev=7234.98 
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>> 
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>> 
>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>>> util=99.93% 
>>> 
>>> Stefan 
> -- 
> 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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Am 16.02.2015 um 23:18 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
>>> Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 
>>>
>>> Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220%
> 
> Oh yes, indeed, that's what I think too. (and more cpu -> less ios in qemu because of single iothread)
> 
> 
> I think that perf report should show the difference, this is strange that you have almost same result in your perf reports.

Not that easy as you can't downgrade from firefly to dumpling. Here is
perf output of firefly vs giant. While they have a difference of about
6k iops i do not see any differences in the perf output.

This is the perf output of the osd side with firefly (27k iops):

  5,44%  libc-2.13.so          [.] 0x1370b0
  4,02%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0  [.] operator new(unsigned long)
  2,84%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0  [.] operator delete(void*)
  2,50%  ceph-osd              [.] 0x5aed30
  1,40%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17   [.] 0xbeacc
  1,39%  [kernel]              [k] intel_idle
  1,34%  libleveldb.so.1.12    [.] 0x24673
  1,30%  libc-2.13.so          [.] vfprintf
  1,20%  [kernel]              [k] __schedule
  1,00%  [kernel]              [k] __switch_to
  0,99%  libleveldb.so.1.12    [.] leveldb::SkipList<char const*,
leveldb::MemTable::KeyComparator>::FindGreaterOrEqual(char const*
  0,96%  libpthread-2.13.so    [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
  0,86%  [kernel]              [k] _raw_spin_lock
  0,83%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17   [.] std::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string(std::string
  0,82%  ceph-osd              [.] ceph::buffer::list::append(char
const*, unsigned int)
  0,81%  libsnappy.so.1.1.3    [.]
snappy::internal::CompressFragment(char const*, unsigned long, char*,
unsigned short*, int)
  0,74%  libpthread-2.13.so    [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
  0,73%  ceph-osd              [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
  0,72%  [kernel]              [k] __d_lookup_rcu
  0,65%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0  [.]
tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache(tcmalloc::ThreadCache::FreeList*,
unsigned long, int
  0,65%  ceph-osd              [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
  0,64%  libleveldb.so.1.12    [.] leveldb::crc32c::Extend(unsigned int,
char const*, unsigned long)
  0,62%  [kernel]              [k] page_fault
  0,58%  ceph-osd              [.]
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::copy(unsigned int, char*)
  0,55%  [kernel]              [k] link_path_walk
  0,53%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17   [.] std::string::append(char const*,
unsigned long)
  0,51%  ceph-osd              [.]
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::advance(int)
  0,46%  ceph-osd              [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::append(char
const*, unsigned int)
  0,45%  libpthread-2.13.so    [.] pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2
  0,43%  libsnappy.so.1.1.3    [.]
snappy::RawUncompress(snappy::Source*, char*)
  0,43%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17   [.] std::string::_M_mutate(unsigned long,
unsigned long, unsigned long)
  0,43%  ceph-osd              [.]
ceph::buffer::list::append(ceph::buffer::ptr const&, unsigned int,
unsigned int)
  0,42%  [kernel]              [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string

and this is giant having (33k iops):

  5,65%  libc-2.13.so             [.] 0x1376a4
  4,36%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0     [.] operator new(unsigned long)
  2,74%  ceph-osd                 [.] 0x48011d
  2,49%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0     [.] operator delete(void*)
  1,42%  libleveldb.so.1.12       [.] 0x24673
  1,27%  libleveldb.so.1.12       [.] leveldb::SkipList<char const*,
leveldb::MemTable::KeyComparator>::FindGreaterOrEqual(char cons
  1,19%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17      [.] 0xbfacb
  0,99%  libc-2.13.so             [.] vfprintf
  0,91%  libsnappy.so.1.1.3       [.]
snappy::internal::CompressFragment(char const*, unsigned long, char*,
unsigned short*, int)
  0,88%  [kernel]                 [k] __schedule
  0,88%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] pthread_mutex_trylock
  0,81%  ceph-osd                 [.] ceph::buffer::list::append(char
const*, unsigned int)
  0,76%  [kernel]                 [k] __d_lookup_rcu
  0,76%  [kernel]                 [k] __switch_to
  0,74%  ceph-osd                 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool)
  0,74%  libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0     [.]
tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache(tcmalloc::ThreadCache::FreeList*,
unsigned long,
  0,72%  [kernel]                 [k] intel_idle
  0,72%  ceph-osd                 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release()
  0,70%  [kernel]                 [k] _raw_spin_lock
  0,66%  libleveldb.so.1.12       [.] leveldb::crc32c::Extend(unsigned
int, char const*, unsigned long)
  0,66%  ceph-osd                 [.]
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::copy(unsigned int, char*)
  0,64%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17      [.] std::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string(std::stri
  0,64%  [kernel]                 [k] page_fault
  0,59%  [kernel]                 [k] link_path_walk
  0,58%  libstdc++.so.6.0.17      [.] std::string::append(char const*,
unsigned long)
  0,57%  libpthread-2.13.so       [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt
  0,56%  ceph-osd                 [.]
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::advance(int)
  0,44%  ceph-osd                 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::append(char
const*, unsigned int)

Stefan


>  
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 23:08:37
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
> 
> Am 16.02.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>: 
> 
>>>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>>>> while running dumpling... 
>>
>> Is it for write only ? 
>> or do you see same decrease for read too 
> 
> Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 
> 
> Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220% 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
>> ? 
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original ----- 
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
>> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 22:22:01 
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
>>
>> I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly. 
>>
>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>> while running dumpling... 
>>
>> Greets, 
>> Stefan 
>>> Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>> Hi Mark, 
>>>
>>> what's next? 
>>>
>>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
>>>
>>> Here some perf Details: 
>>>
>>> dumpling: 
>>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
>>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
>>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
>>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>>>
>>> firefly: 
>>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
>>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
>>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
>>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>>>
>>> Stefan 
>>>
>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1672], 
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2128], 
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>>> 5344], 
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 
>>>>>> 1000=0.53% 
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> firefly: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2064], 
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2896], 
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>>> 6304], 
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>>>>
>>>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>>>
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1032], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1384], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2960], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 
>>>> 99.95th=[13888], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>>>> stdev=7973.92 
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>>>> util=99.93% 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> firefly: 
>>>>
>>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>>>> --name=file1 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1096], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1448], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2736], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 
>>>> 99.95th=[14656], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>>>> stdev=7234.98 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>>>> util=99.93% 
>>>>
>>>> Stefan 
>> -- 
>> 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
> 
--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>Not that easy as you can't downgrade from firefly to dumpling. Here is 
>>perf output of firefly vs giant. While they have a difference of about 
>>6k iops i do not see any differences in the perf output. 
>>
>>This is the perf output of the osd side with firefly (27k iops): 

I don't known for osd side (because they are a lot of optimisations in giant for ssd).

I'll try to redone big client side benchmark next month when my new ssd cluster will be ready.
(I'll try dumpling,firefly,giant,hammer , fio-krbd,fio-librbd, qemu, virtio,virtio-scsi,iothreads,....)

I have planned to take 1month for benchmark, so I hope I'll help.



----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Mardi 17 Février 2015 10:15:09
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Am 16.02.2015 um 23:18 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER: 
>>> Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 
>>> 
>>> Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220% 
> 
> Oh yes, indeed, that's what I think too. (and more cpu -> less ios in qemu because of single iothread) 
> 
> 
> I think that perf report should show the difference, this is strange that you have almost same result in your perf reports. 

Not that easy as you can't downgrade from firefly to dumpling. Here is 
perf output of firefly vs giant. While they have a difference of about 
6k iops i do not see any differences in the perf output. 

This is the perf output of the osd side with firefly (27k iops): 

5,44% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x1370b0 
4,02% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] operator new(unsigned long) 
2,84% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] operator delete(void*) 
2,50% ceph-osd [.] 0x5aed30 
1,40% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] 0xbeacc 
1,39% [kernel] [k] intel_idle 
1,34% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] 0x24673 
1,30% libc-2.13.so [.] vfprintf 
1,20% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
1,00% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
0,99% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] leveldb::SkipList<char const*, 
leveldb::MemTable::KeyComparator>::FindGreaterOrEqual(char const* 
0,96% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
0,86% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
0,83% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] std::basic_string<char, 
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string(std::string 
0,82% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::list::append(char 
const*, unsigned int) 
0,81% libsnappy.so.1.1.3 [.] 
snappy::internal::CompressFragment(char const*, unsigned long, char*, 
unsigned short*, int) 
0,74% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
0,73% ceph-osd [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
0,72% [kernel] [k] __d_lookup_rcu 
0,65% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] 
tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache(tcmalloc::ThreadCache::FreeList*, 
unsigned long, int 
0,65% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
0,64% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] leveldb::crc32c::Extend(unsigned int, 
char const*, unsigned long) 
0,62% [kernel] [k] page_fault 
0,58% ceph-osd [.] 
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::copy(unsigned int, char*) 
0,55% [kernel] [k] link_path_walk 
0,53% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] std::string::append(char const*, 
unsigned long) 
0,51% ceph-osd [.] 
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::advance(int) 
0,46% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::append(char 
const*, unsigned int) 
0,45% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 
0,43% libsnappy.so.1.1.3 [.] 
snappy::RawUncompress(snappy::Source*, char*) 
0,43% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] std::string::_M_mutate(unsigned long, 
unsigned long, unsigned long) 
0,43% ceph-osd [.] 
ceph::buffer::list::append(ceph::buffer::ptr const&, unsigned int, 
unsigned int) 
0,42% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string 

and this is giant having (33k iops): 

5,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x1376a4 
4,36% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] operator new(unsigned long) 
2,74% ceph-osd [.] 0x48011d 
2,49% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] operator delete(void*) 
1,42% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] 0x24673 
1,27% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] leveldb::SkipList<char const*, 
leveldb::MemTable::KeyComparator>::FindGreaterOrEqual(char cons 
1,19% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] 0xbfacb 
0,99% libc-2.13.so [.] vfprintf 
0,91% libsnappy.so.1.1.3 [.] 
snappy::internal::CompressFragment(char const*, unsigned long, char*, 
unsigned short*, int) 
0,88% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
0,88% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
0,81% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::list::append(char 
const*, unsigned int) 
0,76% [kernel] [k] __d_lookup_rcu 
0,76% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
0,74% ceph-osd [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
0,74% libtcmalloc.so.4.1.0 [.] 
tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache(tcmalloc::ThreadCache::FreeList*, 
unsigned long, 
0,72% [kernel] [k] intel_idle 
0,72% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
0,70% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
0,66% libleveldb.so.1.12 [.] leveldb::crc32c::Extend(unsigned 
int, char const*, unsigned long) 
0,66% ceph-osd [.] 
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::copy(unsigned int, char*) 
0,64% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] std::basic_string<char, 
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string(std::stri 
0,64% [kernel] [k] page_fault 
0,59% [kernel] [k] link_path_walk 
0,58% libstdc++.so.6.0.17 [.] std::string::append(char const*, 
unsigned long) 
0,57% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
0,56% ceph-osd [.] 
ceph::buffer::list::iterator::advance(int) 
0,44% ceph-osd [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::append(char 
const*, unsigned int) 

Stefan 


> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original ----- 
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com> 
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 23:08:37 
> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
> 
> Am 16.02.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>: 
> 
>>>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>>>> while running dumpling... 
>> 
>> Is it for write only ? 
>> or do you see same decrease for read too 
> 
> Just tested write. This might be the result of higher CPU load of the ceph-osd processes under firefly. 
> 
> Dumpling 180% per process vs. firefly 220% 
> 
> Stefan 
> 
>> ? 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original ----- 
>> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag> 
>> À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> 
>> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Février 2015 22:22:01 
>> Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try 
>> 
>> I've now upgraded server side and client side to latest upstream/firefly. 
>> 
>> This results in fio-rbd showing avg 26000 iop/s instead of 30500 iop/s 
>> while running dumpling... 
>> 
>> Greets, 
>> Stefan 
>>> Am 15.02.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>> Hi Mark, 
>>> 
>>> what's next? 
>>> 
>>> I've this test cluster only for 2 more days. 
>>> 
>>> Here some perf Details: 
>>> 
>>> dumpling: 
>>> 12,65% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x79000 
>>> 2,86% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>>> 2,80% kvm [.] 0xb59c5 
>>> 2,59% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>>> 2,35% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>>> 2,16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>>> 1,92% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>>> 1,58% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>>> 1,08% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>>> 0,91% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel 
>>> 0,91% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>>> 0,87% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>>> 0,72% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>>> 0,71% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>>> 0,66% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>>> 0,65% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>>> 0,64% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>>> 0,62% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>>> 0,56% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>>> 0,50% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>>> 
>>> firefly: 
>>> 12,56% libc-2.13.so [.] 0x7905d 
>>> 2,82% libc-2.13.so [.] malloc 
>>> 2,64% libc-2.13.so [.] free 
>>> 2,61% kvm [.] 0x34322f 
>>> 2,33% [kernel] [k] __schedule 
>>> 2,14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 
>>> 1,83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 
>>> 1,62% [kernel] [k] lapic_next_deadline 
>>> 1,17% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 
>>> 1,09% [kernel] [k] update_sd_lb_stats 
>>> 1,08% libpthread-2.13.so [.] pthread_mutex_trylock 
>>> 0,85% libpthread-2.13.so [.] __pthread_mutex_unlock_usercnt 
>>> 0,77% [kernel] [k] resched_task 
>>> 0,74% librbd.so.1.0.0 [.] 0x71b73 
>>> 0,72% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] Mutex::Lock(bool) 
>>> 0,68% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] crush_hash32_3 
>>> 0,67% [kernel] [k] idle_cpu 
>>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] leave_mm 
>>> 0,65% [kernel] [k] cpu_startup_entry 
>>> 0,59% [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up 
>>> 0,51% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph::buffer::ptr::release() 
>>> 0,51% [kernel] [k] wake_futex 
>>> 
>>> Stefan 
>>> 
>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 11.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 04:18 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Am 10.02.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Mark Nelson: 
>>>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
>>>>>>>> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've summarized your results here: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IOPS Latency 
>>>>>>> wb on wb off wb on wb off 
>>>>>>> dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>>> firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
>>>>>>> see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> dumpling: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/72812K /s] [0 /18.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3011 
>>>>>> write: io=2060.6MB, bw=70329KB/s, iops=17582 , runt= 30001msec 
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=3517 , avg= 3.42, stdev= 7.30 
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=93 , max=7475 , avg=1815.72, stdev=233.43 
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=219 , max=7477 , avg=1819.27, stdev=233.52 
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1480], 5.00th=[ 1576], 10.00th=[ 1608], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1672], 
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1704], 40.00th=[ 1752], 50.00th=[ 1800], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1896], 80.00th=[ 1960], 90.00th=[ 2064], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2128], 
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2352], 99.50th=[ 2448], 99.90th=[ 4704], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>>> 5344], 
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 7072] 
>>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=59696, max=77840, per=100.00%, avg=70351.27, 
>>>>>> stdev=4783.25 
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 
>>>>>> 1000=0.53% 
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=85.02%, 4=14.31%, 10=0.13% 
>>>>>> cpu : usr=1.96%, sys=6.71%, ctx=22791, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=527487/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>>> WRITE: io=2060.6MB, aggrb=70329KB/s, minb=70329KB/s, maxb=70329KB/s, 
>>>>>> mint=30001msec, maxt=30001msec 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>>> sdb: ios=166/526079, merge=0/0, ticks=24/890120, in_queue=890064, 
>>>>>> util=98.73% 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> firefly: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/69096K /s] [0 /17.3K iops] [eta 
>>>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2982 
>>>>>> write: io=1784.9MB, bw=60918KB/s, iops=15229 , runt= 30002msec 
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=1389 , avg= 3.43, stdev= 5.32 
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=117 , max=8235 , avg=2096.88, stdev=396.30 
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=540 , max=8258 , avg=2100.43, stdev=396.61 
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 1608], 5.00th=[ 1720], 10.00th=[ 1768], 20.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 1832], 
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1896], 40.00th=[ 1944], 50.00th=[ 2008], 60.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2064], 
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 2160], 80.00th=[ 2256], 90.00th=[ 2512], 95.00th=[ 
>>>>>> 2896], 
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 3600], 99.50th=[ 3792], 99.90th=[ 5088], 99.95th=[ 
>>>>>> 6304], 
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 6752] 
>>>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=36717, max=73712, per=99.94%, avg=60879.92, 
>>>>>> stdev=8302.27 
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 750=0.01% 
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=48.56%, 4=51.18%, 10=0.26% 
>>>>>> cpu : usr=2.03%, sys=5.48%, ctx=20440, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=456918/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>>>> WRITE: io=1784.9MB, aggrb=60918KB/s, minb=60918KB/s, maxb=60918KB/s, 
>>>>>> mint=30002msec, maxt=30002msec 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>>>> sdb: ios=166/455574, merge=0/0, ticks=12/897748, in_queue=897696, 
>>>>>> util=98.96% 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, so it looks like as you increase concurrency the effect increases 
>>>>> (ie contention?). Does the same thing happen without cache enabled? 
>>>> 
>>>> here again without rbd cache: 
>>>> 
>>>> dumpling: 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/83488K /s] [0 /20.9K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3000 
>>>> write: io=2449.2MB, bw=83583KB/s, iops=20895 , runt= 30005msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=975 , avg= 4.50, stdev= 5.25 
>>>> clat (usec): min=364 , max=80566 , avg=1525.87, stdev=1194.57 
>>>> lat (usec): min=519 , max=80568 , avg=1530.51, stdev=1194.44 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 660], 5.00th=[ 780], 10.00th=[ 876], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1032], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1144], 40.00th=[ 1240], 50.00th=[ 1304], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1384], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1480], 80.00th=[ 1640], 90.00th=[ 2096], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2960], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 6816], 99.50th=[ 7840], 99.90th=[11712], 
>>>> 99.95th=[13888], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[18816] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47184, max=95432, per=100.00%, avg=83639.19, 
>>>> stdev=7973.92 
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=3.82%, 1000=14.40% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=70.57%, 4=7.91%, 10=3.11%, 20=0.17%, 50=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>>> cpu : usr=3.12%, sys=11.49%, ctx=74951, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=626979/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2449.2MB, aggrb=83583KB/s, minb=83583KB/s, maxb=83583KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30005msec, maxt=30005msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=168/625292, merge=0/0, ticks=144/916096, in_queue=916128, 
>>>> util=99.93% 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> firefly: 
>>>> 
>>>> fio --filename=/dev/sdb --direct=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=1 
>>>> --thread --iodepth=32 --ioengine=libaio --runtime=30 --group_reporting 
>>>> --name=file1 
>>>> file1: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 
>>>> 2.0.8 
>>>> Starting 1 thread 
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w] [100.0% done] [0K/90044K /s] [0 /22.6K iops] [eta 
>>>> 00m:00s] 
>>>> file1: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2970 
>>>> write: io=2372.9MB, bw=80976KB/s, iops=20244 , runt= 30006msec 
>>>> slat (usec): min=1 , max=4047 , avg= 4.36, stdev= 7.17 
>>>> clat (usec): min=197 , max=76656 , avg=1575.29, stdev=1165.74 
>>>> lat (usec): min=523 , max=76660 , avg=1579.79, stdev=1165.59 
>>>> clat percentiles (usec): 
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 676], 5.00th=[ 804], 10.00th=[ 916], 20.00th=[ 
>>>> 1096], 
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 1224], 40.00th=[ 1304], 50.00th=[ 1384], 60.00th=[ 
>>>> 1448], 
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1544], 80.00th=[ 1704], 90.00th=[ 2128], 95.00th=[ 
>>>> 2736], 
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 6752], 99.50th=[ 7904], 99.90th=[12096], 
>>>> 99.95th=[14656], 
>>>> | 99.99th=[18560] 
>>>> bw (KB/s) : min=47800, max=91952, per=99.91%, avg=80900.88, 
>>>> stdev=7234.98 
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.01%, 750=2.95%, 1000=11.38% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=73.81%, 4=8.81%, 10=2.85%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.01% 
>>>> lat (msec) : 100=0.01% 
>>>> cpu : usr=2.99%, sys=10.60%, ctx=66549, majf=0, minf=133 
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, 
>>>>> =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=0.1%, 64=0.0%, 
>>>>> =64=0.0% 
>>>> issued : total=r=0/w=607445/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 
>>>> 
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): 
>>>> WRITE: io=2372.9MB, aggrb=80976KB/s, minb=80976KB/s, maxb=80976KB/s, 
>>>> mint=30006msec, maxt=30006msec 
>>>> 
>>>> Disk stats (read/write): 
>>>> sdb: ios=170/605440, merge=0/0, ticks=156/916492, in_queue=916560, 
>>>> util=99.93% 
>>>> 
>>>> Stefan 
>> -- 
>> 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 
> 

--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

> 
> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 

>>Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 

Last Time I have done perf, even with all debug packages (ceph debug package, kernel debug, libc6 debug package,..)

I have remaining unresolved symbols

Sage Have run my perf report through c++filt, to have missing symbols.

see here:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/22089/match=client+cpu+usage+kbrd+vs+librbd+perf+report


----- Mail original -----
De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
À: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Mardi 10 Février 2015 22:38:07
Objet: Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

On 02/10/2015 03:11 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote: 
> 
> mhm i installed librbd1-dbg and librados2-dbg - but the output still 
> looks useless to me. Should i upload it somewhere? 

Meh, if it's all just symbols it's probably not that helpful. 

I've summarized your results here: 

1 concurrent 4k write (libaio, direct=1, iodepth=1) 

IOPS Latency 
wb on wb off wb on wb off 
dumpling 10870 536 ~100us ~2ms 
firefly 10350 525 ~100us ~2ms 

So in single op tests dumpling and firefly are far closer. Now let's 
see each of these cases with iodepth=32 (still 1 thread for now). 

Mark 

> 
> Stefan 
> -- 
> 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 
--
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: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage, 
>>different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>
>>What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?

Maybe could we bissect this ?

Maybe testing intermediate librbd releases between dumpling and firefly,

http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-wheezy-x86_64-basic/ref/

could we give us an hint.


----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Envoyé: Mardi 10 Février 2015 19:55:26
Objet: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

Hello, 

last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result. 
(http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html) 

I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is 
released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before. 

Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s 
than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling. 

I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear. 

Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling. 

librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 
4k writes 

- stopped qemu 
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/ 
- cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/ 
- start qemu 

same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage, 
different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes 

What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly? 

Greets, 
Stefan 
-- 
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

Re: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Am 11.02.2015 um 08:44 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:
>>> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage, 
>>> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes
>>>
>>> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly?
> 
> Maybe could we bissect this ?
> 
> Maybe testing intermediate librbd releases between dumpling and firefly,
> 
> http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-wheezy-x86_64-basic/ref/

Yes may be. Sadly i've currently another problem on my newest cluster
having strange kworker workload - i've never noticed before on any ceph
system. All writes are hanging - while using the same kernel as everywhere.

Stefan

> 
> could we give us an hint.
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
> À: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Mardi 10 Février 2015 19:55:26
> Objet: speed decrease since firefly,giant,hammer the 2nd try
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> last year in june i already reported this but there was no real result. 
> (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2014-July/041070.html) 
> 
> I then had the hope that this will be fixed itself when hammer is 
> released. Now i tried hammer an the results are bad as before. 
> 
> Since firefly librbd1 / librados2 are 20% slower for 4k random iop/s 
> than dumpling - this is also the reason why i still stick to dumpling. 
> 
> I've now modified my test again to be a bit more clear. 
> 
> Ceph cluster itself completely dumpling. 
> 
> librbd1 / librados from dumpling (fio inside qemu): 23k iop/s for random 
> 4k writes 
> 
> - stopped qemu 
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librados.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/ 
> - cp -ra firefly_0.80.8/usr/lib/librbd.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/ 
> - start qemu 
> 
> same fio, same qemu, same vm, same host, same ceph dumpling storage, 
> different librados / librbd: 16k iop/s for random 4k writes 
> 
> What's wrong with librbd / librados2 since firefly? 
> 
> Greets, 
> Stefan 
> 
--
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