* rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
@ 2015-06-09 5:51 Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1684793881.1564583.1433829106394.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ceph-devel, ceph-users
Hi,
I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
no cache
--------
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
cache
-----
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
Is it expected ?
fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
--------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
| 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
| 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
| 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
| 99.99th=[ 1176]
bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
| 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
| 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
| 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
| 99.99th=[ 2192]
bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1684793881.1564583.1433829106394.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-09 7:21 ` pushpesh sharma
[not found] ` <CAMc8nAWo-jnAHS5cLw5gDt57T3vZpiN79vFXc=pz=+Cjm6Ra6A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: pushpesh sharma @ 2015-06-09 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6525 bytes --]
Hi Alexandre,
We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing
some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno).
Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For
some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond
35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However
increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some
extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each
hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and
CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and
that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we
haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU
pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were
scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling
beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more
congestion effect)
We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to
performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>
>
> no cache
> --------
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>
>
> cache
> -----
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>
>
>
> Is it expected ?
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> --------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9
> 07:48:42 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34,
> stdev=25196.21
> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%,
> >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s,
> mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%,
> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> ------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9
> 07:47:30 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10,
> stdev=15079.93
> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%,
> >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s,
> mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%,
> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
-Pushpesh
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7606 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: Scale.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 31172 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <CAMc8nAWo-jnAHS5cLw5gDt57T3vZpiN79vFXc=pz=+Cjm6Ra6A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-09 7:28 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-09 8:36 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pushpesh sharma; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7171 bytes --]
Hi,
>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
I'm going to see if this tracker
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
could be the cause.
(My master build was done some week ago)
----- Mail original -----
De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Alexandre,
We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
Hi,
I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
no cache
--------
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
cache
-----
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
Is it expected ?
fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
--------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
| 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
| 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
| 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
| 99.99th=[ 1176]
bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
| 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
| 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
| 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
| 99.99th=[ 2192]
bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
-Pushpesh
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-09 7:28 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-09 8:36 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1897614581.1694878.1433838989184.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pushpesh sharma; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users
It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
cache
-----
qd1: 1651
qd2: 3482
qd4: 7958
qd8: 17912
qd16: 36020
qd32: 42765
qd64: 46169
no cache
--------
qd1: 1748
qd2: 3570
qd4: 8356
qd8: 17732
qd16: 41396
qd32: 78633
qd64: 79063
qd128: 79550
----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi,
>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
I'm going to see if this tracker
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
could be the cause.
(My master build was done some week ago)
----- Mail original -----
De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Alexandre,
We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
Hi,
I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
no cache
--------
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
cache
-----
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
Is it expected ?
fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
--------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
| 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
| 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
| 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
| 99.99th=[ 1176]
bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
| 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
| 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
| 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
| 99.99th=[ 2192]
bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
--
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
--
-Pushpesh
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1897614581.1694878.1433838989184.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-09 11:36 ` Mark Nelson
2015-06-09 12:02 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-09 13:39 ` [ceph-users] " Jason Dillaman
0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-06-09 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER, pushpesh sharma; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users
Hi All,
In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
Mark
On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>
> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>
>
> cache
> -----
> qd1: 1651
> qd2: 3482
> qd4: 7958
> qd8: 17912
> qd16: 36020
> qd32: 42765
> qd64: 46169
>
> no cache
> --------
> qd1: 1748
> qd2: 3570
> qd4: 8356
> qd8: 17732
> qd16: 41396
> qd32: 78633
> qd64: 79063
> qd128: 79550
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi,
>
>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>
> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>
>
> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>
>
> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>
> I'm going to see if this tracker
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>
> could be the cause.
>
> (My master build was done some week ago)
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>
> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>
>
>
>
> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>
> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>
> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>
>
> no cache
> --------
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>
>
> cache
> -----
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>
>
>
> Is it expected ?
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> --------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> ------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-09 11:36 ` Mark Nelson
@ 2015-06-09 12:02 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1208111516.1790161.1433851367996.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 13:39 ` [ceph-users] " Jason Dillaman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: pushpesh sharma, ceph-devel, ceph-users
>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>IOPS from 1 VM!
Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
(I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
For 1 client,
I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
(cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
small tip :
I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
(qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html)
I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi All,
In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
Mark
On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>
> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>
>
> cache
> -----
> qd1: 1651
> qd2: 3482
> qd4: 7958
> qd8: 17912
> qd16: 36020
> qd32: 42765
> qd64: 46169
>
> no cache
> --------
> qd1: 1748
> qd2: 3570
> qd4: 8356
> qd8: 17732
> qd16: 41396
> qd32: 78633
> qd64: 79063
> qd128: 79550
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi,
>
>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>
> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>
>
> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>
>
> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>
> I'm going to see if this tracker
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>
> could be the cause.
>
> (My master build was done some week ago)
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>
> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>
>
>
>
> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>
> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>
> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>
>
> no cache
> --------
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>
>
> cache
> -----
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>
>
>
> Is it expected ?
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> --------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>
>
>
>
> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> ------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-09 11:36 ` Mark Nelson
2015-06-09 12:02 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-09 13:39 ` Jason Dillaman
[not found] ` <1569135212.13362835.1433857190455.JavaMail.zimbra-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Jason Dillaman @ 2015-06-09 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: Alexandre DERUMIER, pushpesh sharma, ceph-devel, ceph-users
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
At high queue-depths and high IOPS, I would suspect that the bottleneck is the single, coarse-grained mutex protecting the cache data structures. It's been a back burner item to refactor the current cache mutex into finer-grained locks.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1208111516.1790161.1433851367996.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-09 16:00 ` Robert LeBlanc
2015-06-09 16:47 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Robert LeBlanc @ 2015-06-09 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
oSJX
=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html)
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-09 16:00 ` Robert LeBlanc
@ 2015-06-09 16:47 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1058039366.2034449.1433868447253.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert LeBlanc; +Cc: Mark Nelson, ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
Hi Robert,
>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>the case).
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
this is with
-qemu 2.3
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
-jemmaloc 3.6
-libc6 2.19
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
fio results:
------------
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
---------------------------------------------
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
-------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
--------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
----- Mail original -----
De: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com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=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html)
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1569135212.13362835.1433857190455.JavaMail.zimbra-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-09 16:52 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-09 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Dillaman; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
>>At high queue-depths and high IOPS, I would suspect that the bottleneck is the single, coarse-grained mutex protecting the cache data structures. It's been a back burner item to refactor the current cache mutex into finer->>grained locks.
>>
>>Jason
Thanks for the explain Jason.
Anyway, inside qemu, I'm around 35-40k with or without rbd_cache, so it's make not too much difference currently.
(maybe some other qemu bottleneck).
----- Mail original -----
De: "Jason Dillaman" <dillaman@redhat.com>
À: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
Cc: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 15:39:50
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
At high queue-depths and high IOPS, I would suspect that the bottleneck is the single, coarse-grained mutex protecting the cache data structures. It's been a back burner item to refactor the current cache mutex into finer-grained locks.
Jason
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1058039366.2034449.1433868447253.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-10 4:10 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <284297771.2095666.1433909407567.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-10 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert LeBlanc; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
Hi,
I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
------------------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58
clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71
lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
| 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
| 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
| 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87
lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63%
lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35
clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65
lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
| 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
| 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3632]
bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01%
lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
À: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Robert,
>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>the case).
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
this is with
-qemu 2.3
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
-jemmaloc 3.6
-libc6 2.19
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
fio results:
------------
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
---------------------------------------------
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
-------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
--------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
----- Mail original -----
De: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com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=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html)
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <284297771.2095666.1433909407567.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-10 5:21 ` Irek Fasikhov
[not found] ` <CAF-rypxjbsH3GdUG474OgSZVjdzKyf_0n8-zAkAuGhk83TXQhA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Irek Fasikhov @ 2015-06-10 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 32001 bytes --]
Hi, Alexandre.
Very good work!
Do you have a rpm-file?
Thanks.
2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
> Hi,
>
> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge
> with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%)
> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>
>
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10
> 05:54:24 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58
> clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71
> lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00,
> stdev=21718.87
> lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s,
> mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840,
> util=99.73%
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10
> 06:05:06 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35
> clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65
> lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11,
> stdev=21782.39
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01%
> lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s,
> mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716,
> util=99.85%
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> À: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> >>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> >>tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> >>instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> >>the case).
> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little)
> than jemalloc.
>
>
>
> >>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> >>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> >>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
>
> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed
> regression with tcmalloc.
> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>
> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>
> this is with
> -qemu 2.3
> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
> -jemmaloc 3.6
> -libc6 2.19
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>
>
> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>
>
> fio results:
> ------------
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9
> 18:16:53 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40,
> stdev=16978.03
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s,
> mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>
>
>
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
> ---------------------------------------------
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9
> 18:19:08 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88,
> stdev=16883.77
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s,
> mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396,
> util=99.86%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> -------------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9
> 18:24:01 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78,
> stdev=15521.30
> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s,
> mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972,
> util=99.85%
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9
> 18:27:18 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64,
> stdev=19121.91
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s,
> mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536,
> util=99.84%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
> ----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:01s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9
> 18:30:26 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27,
> stdev=17381.70
> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s,
> mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376,
> util=98.68%
>
>
>
> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> --------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops]
> [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9
> 18:34:11 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14,
> stdev=23440.79
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s,
> mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> the case).
>
> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
> difference. [2]
>
> Further down the rabbit hole....
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org/msg20197.html
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg23982.html
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>
> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
> oSJX
> =k281
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> >>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> >>>IOPS from 1 VM!
> >
> > Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm
> we'll have overhead.
> > (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
> >
> >>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >
> > Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
> >
> > When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
> >
> > For 1 client,
> >
> > I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> > I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
> >
> > with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k
> iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
> >
> > (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
> >
> >
> >
> > small tip :
> > I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by
> around 20%
> >
> > LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> > LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
> >
> > as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
> >
> >
> > (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html)
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> > Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> > Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> > fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> > IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> > of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> > chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
> >
> > Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> > IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
> >>
> >> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with
> differents queue depth size.
> >> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
> >>
> >>
> >> cache
> >> -----
> >> qd1: 1651
> >> qd2: 3482
> >> qd4: 7958
> >> qd8: 17912
> >> qd16: 36020
> >> qd32: 42765
> >> qd64: 46169
> >>
> >> no cache
> >> --------
> >> qd1: 1748
> >> qd2: 3570
> >> qd4: 8356
> >> qd8: 17732
> >> qd16: 41396
> >> qd32: 78633
> >> qd64: 79063
> >> qd128: 79550
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> À: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
> >> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
> >>
> >> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to
> use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with
> virtio-blk).
> >> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
> >>
> >>
> >> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
> >> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single
> host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
> >>
> >>
> >> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops
> with 1osd.
> >>
> >> I'm going to see if this tracker
> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
> >>
> >> could be the cause.
> >>
> >> (My master build was done some week ago)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
> >> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>
> >> Hi Alexandre,
> >>
> >> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were
> doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM,
> openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as
> additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR
> iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but
> no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did
> scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from
> adding more VMs.
> >>
> >> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each
> hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network
> and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors,
> and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we
> haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU
> pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
> >>
> >> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were
> scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling
> beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more
> congestion effect)
> >>
> >> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to
> performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <
> aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
> >> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
> >>
> >>
> >> no cache
> >> --------
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
> >>
> >>
> >> cache
> >> -----
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> >> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it expected ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> >> --------------------------------
> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >> fio-2.1.11
> >> Starting 1 process
> >> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9
> 07:48:42 2015
> >> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> >> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> >> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> >> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> >> clat percentiles (usec):
> >> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> >> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> >> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> >> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> >> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> >> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34,
> stdev=25196.21
> >> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
> >> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> >> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%,
> >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> >> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>
> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s,
> mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
> >>
> >> Disk stats (read/write):
> >> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%,
> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> >> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >> fio-2.1.11
> >> Starting 1 process
> >> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9
> 07:47:30 2015
> >> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> >> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> >> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> >> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> >> clat percentiles (usec):
> >> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> >> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> >> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> >> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> >> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> >> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10,
> stdev=15079.93
> >> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> >> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> >> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> >> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%,
> >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> >> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>
> >> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s,
> mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
> >>
> >> Disk stats (read/write):
> >> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%,
> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> >> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 38321 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <CAF-rypxjbsH3GdUG474OgSZVjdzKyf_0n8-zAkAuGhk83TXQhA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-10 5:41 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <2010200873.2102614.1433914918985.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-10 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Irek Fasikhov; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
>>Very good work!
>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>Thanks.
no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi, Alexandre.
Very good work!
Do you have a rpm-file?
Thanks.
2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
Hi,
I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
------------------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58
clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71
lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
| 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
| 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
| 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87
lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63%
lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35
clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65
lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
| 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
| 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3632]
bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01%
lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Robert,
>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>the case).
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
this is with
-qemu 2.3
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
-jemmaloc 3.6
-libc6 2.19
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
fio results:
------------
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
---------------------------------------------
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
-------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
--------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
----- Mail original -----
De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com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=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <2010200873.2102614.1433914918985.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-10 7:06 ` Somnath Roy
2015-06-10 7:29 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Somnath Roy @ 2015-06-10 7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER, Irek Fasikhov; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing the data.
I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
Regards
Somnath
-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
To: Irek Fasikhov
Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>Very good work!
>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>Thanks.
no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi, Alexandre.
Very good work!
Do you have a rpm-file?
Thanks.
2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
Hi,
I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
------------------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
| 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
| 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
| 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
| 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
| 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3632]
bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Robert,
>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
this is with
-qemu 2.3
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
-jemmaloc 3.6
-libc6 2.19
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
fio results:
------------
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
---------------------------------------------
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
-------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
--------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
----- Mail original -----
De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com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=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
________________________________
PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-10 7:06 ` Somnath Roy
@ 2015-06-10 7:29 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-12 5:52 ` pushpesh sharma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-10 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Somnath Roy; +Cc: Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
Sure no problem.
(BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for sharing the data.
I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
Regards
Somnath
-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
To: Irek Fasikhov
Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>Very good work!
>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>Thanks.
no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi, Alexandre.
Very good work!
Do you have a rpm-file?
Thanks.
2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
Hi,
I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
------------------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
| 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
| 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
| 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
| 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
| 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3632]
bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
----- Mail original -----
De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Robert,
>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
this is with
-qemu 2.3
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
-jemmaloc 3.6
-libc6 2.19
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
fio results:
------------
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
---------------------------------------------
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
-------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
-----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
----------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
--------------------------------------------
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
Disk stats (read/write):
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
----- Mail original -----
De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
the case).
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
difference. [2]
Further down the rabbit hole....
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com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=k281
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>
> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>
>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>
> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>
> For 1 client,
>
> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>
> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>
> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>
>
>
> small tip :
> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>
> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>
>
> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>
>
>
> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi All,
>
> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>
>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> qd1: 1651
>> qd2: 3482
>> qd4: 7958
>> qd8: 17912
>> qd16: 36020
>> qd32: 42765
>> qd64: 46169
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> qd1: 1748
>> qd2: 3570
>> qd4: 8356
>> qd8: 17732
>> qd16: 41396
>> qd32: 78633
>> qd64: 79063
>> qd128: 79550
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>
>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>
>>
>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>
>>
>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>
>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>
>> could be the cause.
>>
>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>
>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>
>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>
>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>
>>
>> no cache
>> --------
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>
>>
>> cache
>> -----
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>> --------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
________________________________
PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-10 7:29 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-12 5:52 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-12 6:03 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: pushpesh sharma @ 2015-06-12 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
Hi Alexandre,
I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
libvirt validation fails on the same.
#virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
#virt-xml-validate vm.xml
Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
failed to validate content
vm.xml fails to validate
Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
-Pushpesh
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>
> Sure no problem.
>
> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
> Thanks for sharing the data.
> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>
> Regards
> Somnath
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
> To: Irek Fasikhov
> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
>>>Very good work!
>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>Thanks.
> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi, Alexandre.
>
> Very good work!
> Do you have a rpm-file?
> Thanks.
>
> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>
>
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>
>
>
>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
>
> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>
> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>
> this is with
> -qemu 2.3
> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
> -jemmaloc 3.6
> -libc6 2.19
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>
>
> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>
>
> fio results:
> ------------
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>
>
>
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
> ---------------------------------------------
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> -------------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
> ----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>
>
>
> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> --------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> the case).
>
> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
> difference. [2]
>
> Further down the rabbit hole....
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>
> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
> oSJX
> =k281
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>
>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>
>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>
>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>
>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>
>> For 1 client,
>>
>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>
>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>
>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>
>>
>>
>> small tip :
>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>
>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>
>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>
>>
>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>
>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>
>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>
>>>
>>> cache
>>> -----
>>> qd1: 1651
>>> qd2: 3482
>>> qd4: 7958
>>> qd8: 17912
>>> qd16: 36020
>>> qd32: 42765
>>> qd64: 46169
>>>
>>> no cache
>>> --------
>>> qd1: 1748
>>> qd2: 3570
>>> qd4: 8356
>>> qd8: 17732
>>> qd16: 41396
>>> qd32: 78633
>>> qd64: 79063
>>> qd128: 79550
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>
>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>
>>>
>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>
>>>
>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>
>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>
>>> could be the cause.
>>>
>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>
>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>
>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>
>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>
>>>
>>> no cache
>>> --------
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>
>>>
>>> cache
>>> -----
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it expected ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>> --------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> Моб.: +79229045757
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
> ________________________________
>
> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-12 5:52 ` pushpesh sharma
@ 2015-06-12 6:03 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-12 6:58 ` pushpesh sharma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-12 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pushpesh sharma; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
Hi,
here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
(you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
<domain type='qemu'>
<name>QEMUGuest1</name>
<uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
<memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
<currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
<vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
<iothreads>2</iothreads>
<os>
<type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
<boot dev='hd'/>
</os>
<clock offset='utc'/>
<on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
<on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
<on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
<devices>
<emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
<disk type='file' device='disk'>
<driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
<source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
<target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
<address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
</disk>
<disk type='file' device='disk'>
<driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
<source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
<target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
</disk>
<controller type='usb' index='0'/>
<controller type='ide' index='0'/>
<controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
<memballoon model='none'/>
</devices>
</domain>
----- Mail original -----
De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Hi Alexandre,
I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
libvirt validation fails on the same.
#virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
#virt-xml-validate vm.xml
Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
failed to validate content
vm.xml fails to validate
Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
-Pushpesh
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>
> Sure no problem.
>
> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
> Thanks for sharing the data.
> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>
> Regards
> Somnath
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
> To: Irek Fasikhov
> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
>>>Very good work!
>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>Thanks.
> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi, Alexandre.
>
> Very good work!
> Do you have a rpm-file?
> Thanks.
>
> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>
>
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>
>
>
>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
>
> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>
> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>
> this is with
> -qemu 2.3
> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
> -jemmaloc 3.6
> -libc6 2.19
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>
>
> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>
>
> fio results:
> ------------
>
> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>
>
>
> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
> ---------------------------------------------
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> -------------------------------------
>
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>
>
>
> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> -----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>
>
>
> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
> ----------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>
>
>
> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> --------------------------------------------
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> fio-2.1.11
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
> clat percentiles (usec):
> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> the case).
>
> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>
> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
> difference. [2]
>
> Further down the rabbit hole....
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>
> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
> oSJX
> =k281
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>
>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>
>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>
>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>
>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>
>> For 1 client,
>>
>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>
>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>
>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>
>>
>>
>> small tip :
>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>
>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>
>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>
>>
>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>
>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>
>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>
>>>
>>> cache
>>> -----
>>> qd1: 1651
>>> qd2: 3482
>>> qd4: 7958
>>> qd8: 17912
>>> qd16: 36020
>>> qd32: 42765
>>> qd64: 46169
>>>
>>> no cache
>>> --------
>>> qd1: 1748
>>> qd2: 3570
>>> qd4: 8356
>>> qd8: 17732
>>> qd16: 41396
>>> qd32: 78633
>>> qd64: 79063
>>> qd128: 79550
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>
>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>
>>>
>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>
>>>
>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>
>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>
>>> could be the cause.
>>>
>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>
>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>
>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>
>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>
>>>
>>> no cache
>>> --------
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>
>>>
>>> cache
>>> -----
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it expected ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>> --------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> Моб.: +79229045757
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
> ________________________________
>
> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-12 6:03 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-12 6:58 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-16 16:38 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: pushpesh sharma @ 2015-06-12 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
expert opinion.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>
> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>
> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>
>
> <domain type='qemu'>
> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
> <os>
> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
> <boot dev='hd'/>
> </os>
> <clock offset='utc'/>
> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> <devices>
> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
> </disk>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
> </disk>
> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
> <memballoon model='none'/>
> </devices>
> </domain>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>
> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
> failed to validate content
> vm.xml fails to validate
>
> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>
> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>
> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>
> -Pushpesh
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>
>> Sure no problem.
>>
>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>
>> Regards
>> Somnath
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>>>>Very good work!
>>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>Thanks.
>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>
>> Very good work!
>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>
>>
>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>
>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>
>> this is with
>> -qemu 2.3
>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>> -libc6 2.19
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>
>>
>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>
>>
>> fio results:
>> ------------
>>
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>> -----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>> -----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>> ----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>> --------------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>> the case).
>>
>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>
>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>> difference. [2]
>>
>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>
>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>
>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>> oSJX
>> =k281
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ----------------
>> Robert LeBlanc
>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>
>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>
>>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>
>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>
>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>
>>> For 1 client,
>>>
>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>
>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>
>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> small tip :
>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>
>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>
>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>
>>>
>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>
>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cache
>>>> -----
>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>
>>>> no cache
>>>> --------
>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>
>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>
>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>
>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>
>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no cache
>>>> --------
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cache
>>>> -----
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>> Моб.: +79229045757
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-12 6:58 ` pushpesh sharma
@ 2015-06-16 16:38 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-22 5:58 ` pushpesh sharma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-16 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pushpesh sharma; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
Hi,
some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
----- Mail original -----
De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
expert opinion.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>
> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>
> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>
>
> <domain type='qemu'>
> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
> <os>
> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
> <boot dev='hd'/>
> </os>
> <clock offset='utc'/>
> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> <devices>
> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
> </disk>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
> </disk>
> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
> <memballoon model='none'/>
> </devices>
> </domain>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>
> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
> failed to validate content
> vm.xml fails to validate
>
> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>
> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>
> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>
> -Pushpesh
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>
>> Sure no problem.
>>
>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>
>> Regards
>> Somnath
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>>>>Very good work!
>>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>Thanks.
>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>
>> Very good work!
>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>
>>
>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>
>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>
>> this is with
>> -qemu 2.3
>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>> -libc6 2.19
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>
>>
>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>
>>
>> fio results:
>> ------------
>>
>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>> -----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>> -----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>> ----------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>
>>
>>
>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>> --------------------------------------------
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>> fio-2.1.11
>> Starting 1 process
>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>> clat percentiles (usec):
>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>
>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>
>> Disk stats (read/write):
>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>> the case).
>>
>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>
>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>> difference. [2]
>>
>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>
>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>
>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>> oSJX
>> =k281
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ----------------
>> Robert LeBlanc
>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>
>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>
>>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>
>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>
>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>
>>> For 1 client,
>>>
>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>
>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>
>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> small tip :
>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>
>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>
>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>
>>>
>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>
>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cache
>>>> -----
>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>
>>>> no cache
>>>> --------
>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>
>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>
>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>
>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>
>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no cache
>>>> --------
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cache
>>>> -----
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>> Моб.: +79229045757
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-16 16:38 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-22 5:58 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-22 7:08 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: pushpesh sharma @ 2015-06-22 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>
> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>
> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>
> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>
> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>
>
> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>
> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
> expert opinion.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>
>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>
>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>
>>
>> <domain type='qemu'>
>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>> <os>
>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>> </os>
>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>> <devices>
>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>> </disk>
>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>> </disk>
>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>> </devices>
>> </domain>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>
>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>> failed to validate content
>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>
>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>
>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>
>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>
>> -Pushpesh
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>
>>> Sure no problem.
>>>
>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Somnath
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>>>>Very good work!
>>>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>Thanks.
>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>
>>> Very good work!
>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>
>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>
>>> this is with
>>> -qemu 2.3
>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>
>>>
>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>
>>>
>>> fio results:
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>> the case).
>>>
>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>
>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>> difference. [2]
>>>
>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>
>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>> oSJX
>>> =k281
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> ----------------
>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>
>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>
>>>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>
>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>
>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>
>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>
>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>
>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>
>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> small tip :
>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>
>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>
>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cache
>>>>> -----
>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>
>>>>> no cache
>>>>> --------
>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>
>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>
>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no cache
>>>>> --------
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cache
>>>>> -----
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-22 5:58 ` pushpesh sharma
@ 2015-06-22 7:08 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-22 7:12 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-22 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pushpesh sharma; +Cc: Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel, ceph-users
>>Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>>parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>>default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>>nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
Thanks for the update.
For proxmox users,
I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0,
and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
(Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
----- Mail original -----
De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
<aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>
> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>
> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>
> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>
> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>
>
> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>
> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
> expert opinion.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>
>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>
>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>
>>
>> <domain type='qemu'>
>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>> <os>
>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>> </os>
>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>> <devices>
>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>> </disk>
>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>> </disk>
>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>> </devices>
>> </domain>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>
>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>> failed to validate content
>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>
>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>
>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>
>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>
>> -Pushpesh
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>>>I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>
>>> Sure no problem.
>>>
>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Somnath
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>>>>Very good work!
>>>>>Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>Thanks.
>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>
>>> Very good work!
>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>>>>What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>
>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>
>>> this is with
>>> -qemu 2.3
>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>
>>>
>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>
>>>
>>> fio results:
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>> fio-2.1.11
>>> Starting 1 process
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>> the case).
>>>
>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>
>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>> difference. [2]
>>>
>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>
>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>> oSJX
>>> =k281
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> ----------------
>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>
>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>
>>>>>>How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>
>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>
>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>
>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>
>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>
>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>
>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> small tip :
>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>
>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>
>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cache
>>>>> -----
>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>
>>>>> no cache
>>>>> --------
>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>
>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>
>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no cache
>>>>> --------
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cache
>>>>> -----
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
--
-Pushpesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-22 7:08 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
@ 2015-06-22 7:12 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
[not found] ` <942E436A-5668-4F76-91E7-FAA08CC0F48A-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG @ 2015-06-22 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER
Cc: pushpesh sharma, Somnath Roy, Irek Fasikhov, ceph-devel,
ceph-users
Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>:
>>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> For proxmox users,
>
> I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
> and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
>
>
> I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
>
> (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>>
>> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>>
>> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>>
>> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>>
>> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>>
>>
>> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>>
>> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
>> expert opinion.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>>
>>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>>
>>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> <domain type='qemu'>
>>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>>> <os>
>>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>>> </os>
>>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>>> <devices>
>>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>>> </devices>
>>> </domain>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>
>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>>
>>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>>> failed to validate content
>>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>>
>>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>>
>>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>>
>>> -Pushpesh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> <aderumier@odiso.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Sure no problem.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>
>>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Somnath
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>>>> Very good work!
>>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
>>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
>>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@leblancnet.us>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>>
>>>> Very good work!
>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>>
>>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>>
>>>> this is with
>>>> -qemu 2.3
>>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio results:
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>>> the case).
>>>>
>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>>> difference. [2]
>>>>
>>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>>
>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>>> oSJX
>>>> =k281
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> ----------------
>>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>>
>>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>>
>>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> small tip :
>>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>>
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>>
>>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <942E436A-5668-4F76-91E7-FAA08CC0F48A-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-22 7:22 ` Irek Fasikhov
2015-06-22 8:54 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Irek Fasikhov @ 2015-06-22 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 46077 bytes --]
It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates
qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file
iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <
s.priebe-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>:
>
> Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
>
> >>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> >>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> >>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> >>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > For proxmox users,
> >
> > I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
>
> Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or
> only multiple disks?
>
> > and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
> >
> >
> > I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
> >
> > (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> > Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
> > Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >
> > Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> > parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> > default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> > nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> > <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
> >>
> >> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
> >>
> >> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
> >>
> >> I have hit a lot of time the
> tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
> >>
> >> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
> >>
> >>
> >> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting
> the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
> >>
> >> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops,
> and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
> >> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>
> >> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
> >> expert opinion.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> >> <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
> >>>
> >>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
> >>>
> >>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with
> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <domain type='qemu'>
> >>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
> >>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
> >>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
> >>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
> >>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
> >>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
> >>> <os>
> >>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
> >>> <boot dev='hd'/>
> >>> </os>
> >>> <clock offset='utc'/>
> >>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
> >>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
> >>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> >>> <devices>
> >>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
> >>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
> >>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04'
> function='0x0'/>
> >>> </disk>
> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
> >>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
> >>> </disk>
> >>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
> >>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
> >>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
> >>> <memballoon model='none'/>
> >>> </devices>
> >>> </domain>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
> >>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
> >>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
> >>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
> >>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
> >>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
> >>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
> >>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
> >>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
> >>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
> >>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
> >>>
> >>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
> >>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
> >>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
> >>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
> >>> failed to validate content
> >>> vm.xml fails to validate
> >>>
> >>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
> >>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
> >>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
> >>>
> >>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
> >>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
> >>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
> >>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
> >>>
> >>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
> >>>
> >>> -Pushpesh
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> >>> <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to
> you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure no problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks
> with 1 iothread by disk)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
> >>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
> >>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to
> you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Somnath
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
> >>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
> >>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops
> around 40k
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Very good work!
> >>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie
> as client)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Alexandre.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very good work!
> >>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is
> huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc
> (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread :
> jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276
> (+45%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10
> 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt=
> 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec):
> min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265,
> avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00,
> stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%,
> ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0,
> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s,
> maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840,
> util=99.73%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10
> 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt=
> 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec):
> min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743,
> avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11,
> stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01%
> lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%,
> ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0,
> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s,
> maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716,
> util=99.85%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Robert,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc
> or
> >>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
> >>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
> >>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very
> little) than jemalloc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> >>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> >>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see
> speed regression with tcmalloc.
> >>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
> >>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
> >>>>
> >>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
> >>>>
> >>>> this is with
> >>>> -qemu 2.3
> >>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
> >>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
> >>>> -libc6 2.19
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> fio results:
> >>>> ------------
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9
> 18:16:53 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
> >>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
> >>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40,
> stdev=16978.03
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s,
> maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096,
> util=99.77%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9
> 18:19:08 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
> >>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
> >>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88,
> stdev=16883.77
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s,
> maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396,
> util=99.86%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> -------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9
> 18:24:01 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
> >>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
> >>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78,
> stdev=15521.30
> >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s,
> maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972,
> util=99.85%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9
> 18:27:18 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
> >>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
> >>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64,
> stdev=19121.91
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s,
> maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536,
> util=99.84%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
> >>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:01s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9
> 18:30:26 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
> >>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
> >>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27,
> stdev=17381.70
> >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s,
> maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376,
> util=98.68%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> >>>> --------------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9
> 18:34:11 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
> >>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
> >>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14,
> stdev=23440.79
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
> >>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s,
> maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636,
> util=99.80%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>> Hash: SHA256
> >>>>
> >>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
> >>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> >>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> >>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> >>>> the case).
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> >>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> >>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
> >>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
> >>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
> >>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
> >>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
> >>>> difference. [2]
> >>>>
> >>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org/msg20197.html
> >>>> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg23982.html
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> >>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
> >>>>
> >>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
> >>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
> >>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
> >>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
> >>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
> >>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
> >>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
> >>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
> >>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
> >>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
> >>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
> >>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
> >>>> oSJX
> >>>> =k281
> >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>>> ----------------
> >>>> Robert LeBlanc
> >>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <
> aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit
> 80K
> >>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a
> vm we'll have overhead.
> >>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For 1 client,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1
> osd.
> >>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3
> osd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and
> 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> small tip :
> >>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies
> by around 20%
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html
> )
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> >>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that
> we've
> >>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K
> read
> >>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a
> couple
> >>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> >>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> >>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- >
> 16)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with
> differents queue depth size.
> >>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cache
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>> qd1: 1651
> >>>>>> qd2: 3482
> >>>>>> qd4: 7958
> >>>>>> qd8: 17912
> >>>>>> qd16: 36020
> >>>>>> qd32: 42765
> >>>>>> qd64: 46169
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> no cache
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> qd1: 1748
> >>>>>> qd2: 3570
> >>>>>> qd4: 8356
> >>>>>> qd8: 17732
> >>>>>> qd16: 41396
> >>>>>> qd32: 78633
> >>>>>> qd64: 79063
> >>>>>> qd128: 79550
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
> >>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops
> around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need
> to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with
> virtio-blk).
> >>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
> >>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a
> single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops
> with 1osd.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
> >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> could be the cause.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
> >>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were
> doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM,
> openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as
> additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR
> iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but
> no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did
> scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from
> adding more VMs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor,
> each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating
> network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at
> hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling
> effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We
> tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs
> were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than
> scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe
> more congestion effect)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to
> performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <
> aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k
> qdepth=32,
> >>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> no cache
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cache
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it expected ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> >>>>>> --------------------------------
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >>>>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue
> Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
> >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> >>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> >>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> >>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34,
> stdev=25196.21
> >>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%,
> 1000=0.23%
> >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> >>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%,
> >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s,
> maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%,
> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> >>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >>>>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue
> Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
> >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> >>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> >>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> >>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10,
> stdev=15079.93
> >>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> >>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%,
> >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s,
> maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%,
> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> >>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> >>>> Моб.: +79229045757
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail
> message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named
> above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy
> any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies
> or electronically stored copies).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -Pushpesh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Pushpesh
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Pushpesh
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 65366 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-22 7:22 ` Irek Fasikhov
@ 2015-06-22 8:54 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1581092206.1667776.1434963299884.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-22 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Irek Fasikhov
Cc: Stefan Priebe, pushpesh sharma, Somnath Roy, ceph-devel,
ceph-users
>>It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
Yes and no ;)
Currently in proxmox 3.4, iothread:1 generate only 1 iothread for all disks.
So, you'll have a small extra boost, but it'll not scale with multiple disks.
Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
>>Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
Iothread can also help for single disk, because by default qemu use a main thread for disk but also other things(don't remember what exactly)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
À: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
Cc: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 09:22:13
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG < s.priebe@profihost.ag > :
Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com >:
>>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> For proxmox users,
>
> I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
> and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
>
>
> I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
>
> (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>>
>> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>>
>> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>>
>> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>>
>> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>>
>>
>> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>>
>> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
>> expert opinion.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>>
>>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>>
>>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> <domain type='qemu'>
>>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>>> <os>
>>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>>> </os>
>>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>>> <devices>
>>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>>> </devices>
>>> </domain>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>>
>>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>>> failed to validate content
>>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>>
>>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>>
>>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>>
>>> -Pushpesh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Sure no problem.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Somnath
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com ] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>>>> Very good work!
>>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>>
>>>> Very good work!
>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>>
>>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>>
>>>> this is with
>>>> -qemu 2.3
>>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio results:
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>>> the case).
>>>>
>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>>> difference. [2]
>>>>
>>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>>
>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>>> oSJX
>>>> =k281
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> ----------------
>>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>>
>>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>>
>>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> small tip :
>>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>>
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>>
>>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <1581092206.1667776.1434963299884.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-22 9:04 ` Irek Fasikhov
2015-06-22 9:26 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Irek Fasikhov @ 2015-06-22 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 47968 bytes --]
| Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
Alexandre, Useful option!
In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration
file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
Thanks.
2015-06-22 11:54 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
> >>It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates
> qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file
> iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
>
> Yes and no ;)
>
> Currently in proxmox 3.4, iothread:1 generate only 1 iothread for all
> disks.
>
> So, you'll have a small extra boost, but it'll not scale with multiple
> disks.
>
> Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
>
>
> >>Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
>
> Iothread can also help for single disk, because by default qemu use a main
> thread for disk but also other things(don't remember what exactly)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> À: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
> "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 09:22:13
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates
> qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file
> iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
>
> 2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <
> s.priebe-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org > :
>
>
>
> Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >:
>
> >>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> >>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> >>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> >>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > For proxmox users,
> >
> > I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
>
> Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or
> only multiple disks?
>
> > and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
> >
> >
> > I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
> >
> > (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> > À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> > Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >,
> "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> > Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
> > Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >
> > Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> > parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> > default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> > nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> > < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
> >>
> >> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
> >>
> >> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
> >>
> >> I have hit a lot of time the
> tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
> >>
> >> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
> >>
> >>
> >> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting
> the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
> >>
> >> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops,
> and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >,
> "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
> >> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>
> >> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
> >> expert opinion.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> >> < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
> >>>
> >>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
> >>>
> >>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with
> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <domain type='qemu'>
> >>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
> >>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
> >>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
> >>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
> >>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
> >>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
> >>> <os>
> >>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
> >>> <boot dev='hd'/>
> >>> </os>
> >>> <clock offset='utc'/>
> >>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
> >>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
> >>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> >>> <devices>
> >>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
> >>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
> >>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04'
> function='0x0'/>
> >>> </disk>
> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
> >>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
> >>> </disk>
> >>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
> >>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
> >>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
> >>> <memballoon model='none'/>
> >>> </devices>
> >>> </domain>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >,
> "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
> >>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
> >>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
> >>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
> >>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
> >>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
> >>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
> >>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
> >>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
> >>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
> >>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
> >>>
> >>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
> >>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
> >>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
> >>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
> >>> failed to validate content
> >>> vm.xml fails to validate
> >>>
> >>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
> >>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
> >>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
> >>>
> >>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
> >>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
> >>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
> >>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
> >>>
> >>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
> >>>
> >>> -Pushpesh
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> >>> < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to
> you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure no problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks
> with 1 iothread by disk)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" <
> malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
> >>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
> >>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to
> you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Somnath
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org ] On
> Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
> >>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
> >>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops
> around 40k
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Very good work!
> >>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie
> as client)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Alexandre.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very good work!
> >>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is
> huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc
> (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread :
> jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276
> (+45%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10
> 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt=
> 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec):
> min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265,
> avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00,
> stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63%
> lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%,
> ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0,
> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s,
> maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840,
> util=99.73%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10
> 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt=
> 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec):
> min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743,
> avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11,
> stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01%
> lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%,
> ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0,
> short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s,
> maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716,
> util=99.85%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Robert,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc
> or
> >>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
> >>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
> >>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very
> little) than jemalloc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> >>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> >>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see
> speed regression with tcmalloc.
> >>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
> >>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
> >>>>
> >>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
> >>>>
> >>>> this is with
> >>>> -qemu 2.3
> >>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
> >>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
> >>>> -libc6 2.19
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
> >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> fio results:
> >>>> ------------
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9
> 18:16:53 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
> >>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
> >>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40,
> stdev=16978.03
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s,
> maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096,
> util=99.77%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9
> 18:19:08 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
> >>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
> >>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88,
> stdev=16883.77
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s,
> maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396,
> util=99.86%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
> >>>> -------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9
> 18:24:01 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
> >>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
> >>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78,
> stdev=15521.30
> >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s,
> maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972,
> util=99.85%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9
> 18:27:18 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
> >>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
> >>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64,
> stdev=19121.91
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s,
> maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536,
> util=99.84%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
> >>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:01s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9
> 18:30:26 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
> >>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
> >>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27,
> stdev=17381.70
> >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
> >>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s,
> maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376,
> util=98.68%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
> >>>> --------------------------------------------
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
> >>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9
> 18:34:11 2015
> >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
> >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
> >>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
> >>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
> >>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
> >>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
> >>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
> >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
> >>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
> >>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14,
> stdev=23440.79
> >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
> >>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
> >>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
> >>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>
> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s,
> maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
> >>>>
> >>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636,
> util=99.80%
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" <
> ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
> >>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>> Hash: SHA256
> >>>>
> >>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
> >>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
> >>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
> >>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
> >>>> the case).
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
> >>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
> >>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
> >>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
> >>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
> >>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
> >>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
> >>>> difference. [2]
> >>>>
> >>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org/msg20197.html
> >>>> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg23982.html
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
> >>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
> >>>>
> >>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
> >>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
> >>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
> >>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
> >>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
> >>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
> >>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
> >>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
> >>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
> >>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
> >>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
> >>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
> >>>> oSJX
> >>>> =k281
> >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>>> ----------------
> >>>> Robert LeBlanc
> >>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <
> aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit
> 80K
> >>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a
> vm we'll have overhead.
> >>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For 1 client,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1
> osd.
> >>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3
> osd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and
> 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> small tip :
> >>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies
> by around 20%
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
> >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
> >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html
> )
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" <
> pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
> >>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around
> 40k
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that
> we've
> >>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K
> read
> >>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a
> couple
> >>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
> >>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
> >>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- >
> 16)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with
> differents queue depth size.
> >>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cache
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>> qd1: 1651
> >>>>>> qd2: 3482
> >>>>>> qd4: 7958
> >>>>>> qd8: 17912
> >>>>>> qd16: 36020
> >>>>>> qd32: 42765
> >>>>>> qd64: 46169
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> no cache
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> qd1: 1748
> >>>>>> qd2: 3570
> >>>>>> qd4: 8356
> >>>>>> qd8: 17732
> >>>>>> qd16: 41396
> >>>>>> qd32: 78633
> >>>>>> qd64: 79063
> >>>>>> qd128: 79550
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
> >>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops
> around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need
> to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with
> virtio-blk).
> >>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
> >>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a
> single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops
> with 1osd.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
> >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> could be the cause.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
> >>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" <
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
> >>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were
> doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM,
> openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as
> additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR
> iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but
> no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did
> scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from
> adding more VMs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor,
> each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating
> network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at
> hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling
> effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We
> tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs
> were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than
> scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe
> more congestion effect)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to
> performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER <
> aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k
> qdepth=32,
> >>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> no cache
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cache
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
> >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it expected ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
> >>>>>> --------------------------------
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >>>>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue
> Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
> >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
> >>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
> >>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
> >>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
> >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
> >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
> >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
> >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
> >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
> >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34,
> stdev=25196.21
> >>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%,
> 1000=0.23%
> >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
> >>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
> >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%,
> >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s,
> maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%,
> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
> >>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K,
> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
> >>>>>> fio-2.1.11
> >>>>>> Starting 1 process
> >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
> >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0
> iops] [eta 00m:00s]
> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue
> Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
> >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
> >>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
> >>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
> >>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
> >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
> >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
> >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
> >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
> >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
> >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
> >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10,
> stdev=15079.93
> >>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
> >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
> >>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
> >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%,
> >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%,
> >=64=0.0%
> >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
> >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s,
> maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
> >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%,
> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
> >>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> >>>> Моб.: +79229045757
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ceph-users mailing list
> >>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail
> message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named
> above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy
> any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies
> or electronically stored copies).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -Pushpesh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Pushpesh
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Pushpesh
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> Моб.: +79229045757
>
>
>
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 68204 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
2015-06-22 9:04 ` Irek Fasikhov
@ 2015-06-22 9:26 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <43279853.1688973.1434965164602.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-22 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Irek Fasikhov
Cc: Stefan Priebe, pushpesh sharma, Somnath Roy, ceph-devel,
ceph-users
>>In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
>>Thanks.
This small patch on top of qemu-server should be enough (I think it should apply on 3.4 sources without problem)
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=51f492cd6da0228129aaab1393b5c5844d75a53c
No need to hack qemu-kvm
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 11:04:42
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
| Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
Alexandre, Useful option!
In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
Thanks.
2015-06-22 11:54 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
Yes and no ;)
Currently in proxmox 3.4, iothread:1 generate only 1 iothread for all disks.
So, you'll have a small extra boost, but it'll not scale with multiple disks.
Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
>>Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
Iothread can also help for single disk, because by default qemu use a main thread for disk but also other things(don't remember what exactly)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
À: "Stefan Priebe" < s.priebe@profihost.ag >
Cc: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 09:22:13
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG < s.priebe@profihost.ag > :
Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com >:
>>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> For proxmox users,
>
> I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
> and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
>
>
> I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
>
> (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>>
>> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>>
>> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>>
>> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>>
>> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>>
>>
>> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>>
>> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
>> expert opinion.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>>
>>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>>
>>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> <domain type='qemu'>
>>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>>> <os>
>>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>>> </os>
>>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>>> <devices>
>>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>>> </disk>
>>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>>> </devices>
>>> </domain>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>>
>>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>>> failed to validate content
>>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>>
>>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>>
>>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>>
>>> -Pushpesh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Sure no problem.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Somnath
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com ] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>>>> Very good work!
>>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>>
>>>> Very good work!
>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>>
>>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>>
>>>> this is with
>>>> -qemu 2.3
>>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> fio results:
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>
>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>>
>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>>> the case).
>>>>
>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>>> difference. [2]
>>>>
>>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
>>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>>
>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>>> oSJX
>>>> =k281
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> ----------------
>>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>>
>>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>>
>>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> small tip :
>>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>>
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>>
>>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
>>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>
>
>
> --
> -Pushpesh
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <43279853.1688973.1434965164602.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-22 9:28 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
[not found] ` <B7D8B5F0-4AB9-449A-895D-CF87AE49BCF6-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG @ 2015-06-22 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 48536 bytes --]
Oh so it only works for virtio disks? I'm using scsi with the virtio PCI controller.
Stefan
Excuse my typo sent from my mobile phone.
Am 22.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
>>> In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
>>> Thanks.
>
> This small patch on top of qemu-server should be enough (I think it should apply on 3.4 sources without problem)
>
> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=51f492cd6da0228129aaab1393b5c5844d75a53c
>
> No need to hack qemu-kvm
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> À: "aderumier" <aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 11:04:42
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> | Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
> Alexandre, Useful option!
> In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
> Thanks.
>
> 2015-06-22 11:54 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > :
>
>
>>> It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
>
> Yes and no ;)
>
> Currently in proxmox 3.4, iothread:1 generate only 1 iothread for all disks.
>
> So, you'll have a small extra boost, but it'll not scale with multiple disks.
>
> Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
>
>
>>> Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
>
> Iothread can also help for single disk, because by default qemu use a main thread for disk but also other things(don't remember what exactly)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
> À: "Stefan Priebe" < s.priebe-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org >
> Cc: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 09:22:13
> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>
> It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
>
> 2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG < s.priebe@profihost.ag > :
>
>
>
> Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >:
>
>>>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>>>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>>>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>>>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> For proxmox users,
>>
>> I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
>
> Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
>
>> and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
>>
>>
>> I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
>>
>> (Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>
>> Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
>> parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
>> default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
>> nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>> < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
>>>
>>> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
>>>
>>> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
>>>
>>> I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
>>>
>>> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
>>>
>>>
>>> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
>>>
>>> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>
>>> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
>>> expert opinion.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>>> < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
>>>>
>>>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
>>>>
>>>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <domain type='qemu'>
>>>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name>
>>>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
>>>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
>>>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
>>>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
>>>> <iothreads>2</iothreads>
>>>> <os>
>>>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
>>>> <boot dev='hd'/>
>>>> </os>
>>>> <clock offset='utc'/>
>>>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
>>>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
>>>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
>>>> <devices>
>>>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
>>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
>>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
>>>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
>>>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
>>>> </disk>
>>>> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
>>>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
>>>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
>>>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
>>>> </disk>
>>>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/>
>>>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/>
>>>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
>>>> <memballoon model='none'/>
>>>> </devices>
>>>> </domain>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
>>>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
>>>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
>>>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
>>>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
>>>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
>>>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
>>>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
>>>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
>>>> libvirt validation fails on the same.
>>>>
>>>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
>>>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml
>>>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
>>>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
>>>> failed to validate content
>>>> vm.xml fails to validate
>>>>
>>>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
>>>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
>>>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
>>>>
>>>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
>>>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
>>>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
>>>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
>>>>
>>>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
>>>>
>>>> -Pushpesh
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
>>>> < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
>>>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
>>>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>> Thanks for sharing the data.
>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Somnath
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org ] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
>>>>> To: Irek Fasikhov
>>>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very good work!
>>>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Alexandre.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very good work!
>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file?
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
>>>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
>>>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
>>>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
>>>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
>>>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
>>>>>
>>>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
>>>>>
>>>>> this is with
>>>>> -qemu 2.3
>>>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1
>>>>> -jemmaloc 3.6
>>>>> -libc6 2.19
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
>>>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
>>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fio results:
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
>>>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
>>>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
>>>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
>>>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
>>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
>>>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
>>>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
>>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
>>>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
>>>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
>>>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
>>>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
>>>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
>>>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
>>>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
>>>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
>>>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
>>>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608]
>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
>>>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
>>>>> 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>
>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
>>>>>
>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert-4JaGZRWAfWbajFs6igw21g@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>>
>>>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
>>>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
>>>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
>>>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
>>>>> the case).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
>>>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
>>>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
>>>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
>>>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
>>>>> difference. [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Further down the rabbit hole....
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org/msg20197.html
>>>>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg23982.html
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
>>>>>
>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
>>>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
>>>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
>>>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
>>>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
>>>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
>>>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
>>>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
>>>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
>>>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
>>>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
>>>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
>>>>> oSJX
>>>>> =k281
>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
>>>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For 1 client,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
>>>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> small tip :
>>>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
>>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
>>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
>>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
>>>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
>>>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
>>>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
>>>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
>>>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> qd1: 1651
>>>>>>> qd2: 3482
>>>>>>> qd4: 7958
>>>>>>> qd8: 17912
>>>>>>> qd16: 36020
>>>>>>> qd32: 42765
>>>>>>> qd64: 46169
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> qd1: 1748
>>>>>>> qd2: 3570
>>>>>>> qd4: 8356
>>>>>>> qd8: 17732
>>>>>>> qd16: 41396
>>>>>>> qd32: 78633
>>>>>>> qd64: 79063
>>>>>>> qd128: 79550
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
>>>>>>> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
>>>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
>>>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker
>>>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could be the cause.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier-U/x3PoR4x10AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >
>>>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
>>>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
>>>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no cache
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
>>>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it expected ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
>>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
>>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
>>>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
>>>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
>>>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
>>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
>>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
>>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
>>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176]
>>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
>>>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
>>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
>>>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
>>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=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=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
>>>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
>>>>>>> fio-2.1.11
>>>>>>> Starting 1 process
>>>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
>>>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
>>>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
>>>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
>>>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
>>>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
>>>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
>>>>>>> clat percentiles (usec):
>>>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
>>>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
>>>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
>>>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
>>>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192]
>>>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
>>>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
>>>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
>>>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
>>>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=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=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>>>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
>>>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
>>>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
>>>>> Моб.: +79229045757
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Pushpesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Pushpesh
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> Моб.: +79229045757
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
> Моб.: +79229045757
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 199304 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
[not found] ` <B7D8B5F0-4AB9-449A-895D-CF87AE49BCF6-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
@ 2015-06-22 9:57 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-06-22 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Priebe; +Cc: ceph-devel, pushpesh sharma, ceph-users
>>Oh so it only works for virtio disks? I'm using scsi with the virtio PCI controller.
It's working too with virtio-scsi, but it's not thread safe yet.
Also virtio-scsi disk hot-unplug crash qemu with iothread.
Paolo from qemu said that it should be ready in coming releases (qemu 2.6 - 2.7).
I have added the support in proxmox too for virtio-scsi, but don't expose it yet in gui.
(1 virtio-scsi controller by scsi disk, with 1 iothread by controller)
here the patches:
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=6731a4cfa93a62c66ff42b6214bd34745feda088
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=2733141ce318fd6670620b4a92f70ae0dc653f5f
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=fc8b40fd5fba79110b34720c1e48e1785740fe28
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=8bcf3068eb2d1da79231e6684800b958e7e3dcd7
----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Priebe" <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Cc: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@gmail.com>, "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@gmail.com>, "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 11:28:03
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
Oh so it only works for virtio disks? I'm using scsi with the virtio PCI controller.
Stefan
Excuse my typo s ent from my mobile phone.
Am 22.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com >:
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks.
BQ_END
BQ_END
This small patch on top of qemu-server should be enough (I think it should apply on 3.4 sources without problem)
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=qemu-server.git;a=commit;h=51f492cd6da0228129aaab1393b5c5844d75a53c
No need to hack qemu-kvm
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
Cc: "Stefan Priebe" < s.priebe@profihost.ag >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 11:04:42
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
| Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
Alexandre, Useful option!
In proxmox 3.4 will it be possible to add at least in the configuration file? Or it entails a change in the source code KVM?
Thanks.
2015-06-22 11:54 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
BQ_END
BQ_END
Yes and no ;)
Currently in proxmox 3.4, iothread:1 generate only 1 iothread for all disks.
So, you'll have a small extra boost, but it'll not scale with multiple disks.
Proxmox 4.0 will allow to enable|disable 1 iothread by disk.
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
BQ_END
BQ_END
Iothread can also help for single disk, because by default qemu use a main thread for disk but also other things(don't remember what exactly)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
À: "Stefan Priebe" < s.priebe@profihost.ag >
Cc: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 09:22:13
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
It is already possible to do in proxmox 3.4 (with the latest updates qemu-kvm 2.2.x). But it is necessary to register in the conf file iothread:1. For single drives the ambiguous behavior of productivity.
2015-06-22 10:12 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG < s.priebe@profihost.ag > :
Am 22.06.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com >:
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks for the update.
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
For proxmox users,
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
I have added iothread option to gui for proxmox 4.0
BQ_END
Can we make iothread the default? Does it also help for single disks or only multiple disks?
BQ_BEGIN
and added jemalloc as default memory allocator
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
I have also send a jemmaloc patch to qemu dev mailing
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
(Help is welcome to push it in qemu upstream ! )
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Lundi 22 Juin 2015 07:58:47
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
Just an update, there seems to be no proper way to pass iothread
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
parameter from openstack-nova (not at least in Juno release). So a
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
default single iothread per VM is what all we have. So in conclusion a
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
nova instance max iops on ceph rbd will be limited to 30-40K.
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
< aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I have hit a lot of time the tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ...
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
expert opinion.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
< aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks).
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<domain type='qemu'>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<name>QEMUGuest1</name>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<iothreads>2</iothreads>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<os>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<boot dev='hd'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
</os>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<clock offset='utc'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<devices>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<disk type='file' device='disk'>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
</disk>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<disk type='file' device='disk'>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
</disk>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<controller type='usb' index='0'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<controller type='ide' index='0'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
<memballoon model='none'/>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
</devices>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
</domain>
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi Alexandre,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
libvirt validation fails on the same.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
#virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
#virt-xml-validate vm.xml
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
failed to validate content
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vm.xml fails to validate
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Could you suggest me a way to set the same.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-Pushpesh
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
< aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Sure no problem.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks with 1 iothread by disk)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "Somnath Roy" < Somnath.Roy@sandisk.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi Alexandre,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks for sharing the data.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Regards
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Somnath
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----Original Message-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
From: ceph-users [mailto: ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com ] On Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
To: Irek Fasikhov
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Very good work!
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Do you have a rpm-file?
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie as client)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "Irek Fasikhov" < malmyzh@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi, Alexandre.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Very good work!
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Do you have a rpm-file?
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Thanks.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > :
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) !
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 (+7%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
------------------------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, util=99.73%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 3632]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 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=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, util=99.85%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi Robert,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either tcmalloc or
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case).
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very little) than jemalloc.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see speed regression with tcmalloc.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
this is with
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-qemu 2.3
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-tcmalloc 2.2.1
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-jemmaloc 3.6
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-libc6 2.19
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio results:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 18:16:53 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 3888]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, stdev=16978.03
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, util=99.77%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
---------------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 18:19:08 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 4320]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, stdev=16883.77
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, util=99.86%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 18:24:01 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 3984]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, stdev=15521.30
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, util=99.85%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 18:27:18 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 4832]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, stdev=19121.91
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, util=99.84%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:01s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 18:30:26 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 3760]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, stdev=17381.70
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, util=98.68%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--------------------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 18:34:11 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 2608]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, stdev=23440.79
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, util=99.80%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@leblancnet.us >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >, "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hash: SHA256
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
the case).
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
difference. [2]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Further down the rabbit hole....
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg20197.html
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg23982.html
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
oSJX
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
=k281
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Robert LeBlanc
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IOPS from 1 VM!
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a vm we'll have overhead.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(I'm planning to send results in qemu soon)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500),
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
For 1 client,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
small tip :
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies by around 20%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ...
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ...
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html )
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@redhat.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >, "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi All,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that we've
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K read
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs?
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Mark
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > 16)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with differents queue depth size.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cache
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd1: 1651
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd2: 3482
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd4: 7958
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd8: 17912
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd16: 36020
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd32: 42765
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd64: 46169
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
no cache
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd1: 1748
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd2: 3570
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd4: 8356
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd8: 17732
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd16: 41396
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd32: 78633
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd64: 79063
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
qd128: 79550
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk (works with virtio-blk).
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k iops with 1osd.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm going to see if this tracker
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
could be the cause.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
(My master build was done some week ago)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
----- Mail original -----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@gmail.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
À: "aderumier" < aderumier@odiso.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi Alexandre,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding more VMs.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:-
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related tuning as well, but no luck.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect)
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is the case.
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@odiso.com > wrote:
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Hi,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32,
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
no cache
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cache
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-----
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Is it expected ?
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue Jun 9 07:48:42 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 1176]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, stdev=25196.21
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, aggrutil=0.00%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
------------------------------
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
fio-2.1.11
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Starting 1 process
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue Jun 9 07:47:30 2015
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
clat percentiles (usec):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288],
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
| 99.99th=[ 2192]
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, stdev=15079.93
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Disk stats (read/write):
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, aggrutil=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
_______________________________________________
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users mailing list
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
_______________________________________________
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users mailing list
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
Моб.: +79229045757
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
_______________________________________________
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users mailing list
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
________________________________
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-Pushpesh
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
--
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_BEGIN
-Pushpesh
BQ_END
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
--
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
-Pushpesh
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
--
BQ_END
BQ_BEGIN
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
BQ_END
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
--
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-06-22 9:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-06-09 5:51 rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1684793881.1564583.1433829106394.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 7:21 ` pushpesh sharma
[not found] ` <CAMc8nAWo-jnAHS5cLw5gDt57T3vZpiN79vFXc=pz=+Cjm6Ra6A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 7:28 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-09 8:36 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1897614581.1694878.1433838989184.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 11:36 ` Mark Nelson
2015-06-09 12:02 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1208111516.1790161.1433851367996.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 16:00 ` Robert LeBlanc
2015-06-09 16:47 ` [ceph-users] " Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1058039366.2034449.1433868447253.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-10 4:10 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <284297771.2095666.1433909407567.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-10 5:21 ` Irek Fasikhov
[not found] ` <CAF-rypxjbsH3GdUG474OgSZVjdzKyf_0n8-zAkAuGhk83TXQhA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-10 5:41 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <2010200873.2102614.1433914918985.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-10 7:06 ` Somnath Roy
2015-06-10 7:29 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-12 5:52 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-12 6:03 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-12 6:58 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-16 16:38 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-22 5:58 ` pushpesh sharma
2015-06-22 7:08 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-22 7:12 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
[not found] ` <942E436A-5668-4F76-91E7-FAA08CC0F48A-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-22 7:22 ` Irek Fasikhov
2015-06-22 8:54 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <1581092206.1667776.1434963299884.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-22 9:04 ` Irek Fasikhov
2015-06-22 9:26 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
[not found] ` <43279853.1688973.1434965164602.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-22 9:28 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
[not found] ` <B7D8B5F0-4AB9-449A-895D-CF87AE49BCF6-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-22 9:57 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
2015-06-09 13:39 ` [ceph-users] " Jason Dillaman
[not found] ` <1569135212.13362835.1433857190455.JavaMail.zimbra-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-06-09 16:52 ` Alexandre DERUMIER
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.