Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results

[Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com>]

Hi Xiaoxi,

I would ignore the tails on those tests.  I suspect it's just some fio 
processes finishing earlier than others and the associated aggregate 
performance dropping off.  These reads tests are so fast that my 
original guess at reasonable volume sizes for 300 second tests appear to 
be off.

Mark

On 10/14/2015 10:57 AM, Chen, Xiaoxi wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>       The Async result  in 128K drops quickly after some point, is that because of the testing methodology?
>
>       Other conclusion looks to me like simple messenger + Jemalloc is the best practice till now as it has the same performance as async but using much less memory?
>
> -Xiaoxi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of
>> Mark Nelson
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:03 PM
>> To: Haomai Wang
>> Cc: ceph-devel; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs
>> AsyncMessenger results
>>
>> Hi Haomai,
>>
>> Great!  I haven't had a chance to dig in and look at it with valgrind yet, but if I
>> get a chance after I'm done with newstore fragment testing and somnath's
>> writepath work I'll try to go back and dig in if you haven't had a chance yet.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 09:56 PM, Haomai Wang wrote:
>>> resend
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> COOL
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that async messenger will consume more memory than
>>>> simple, in my mind I always think async should use less memory. I
>>>> will give a look at this
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Guy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator
>>>>> configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect
>>>>> of memory allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage),
>>>>> I thought I'd run some tests looking how AsyncMessenger does in
>>>>> comparison.  We spoke about these a bit at the last performance
>> meeting but here's the full write up.
>>>>> The rough conclusion as of right now appears to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) AsyncMessenger performance is not dependent on the memory
>>>>> allocator like with SimpleMessenger.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) AsyncMessenger is faster than SimpleMessenger with TCMalloc +
>>>>> 32MB (ie
>>>>> default) thread cache.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) AsyncMessenger is consistently faster than SimpleMessenger for
>>>>> 128K random reads.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) AsyncMessenger is sometimes slower than SimpleMessenger when
>>>>> memory allocator optimizations are used.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) AsyncMessenger currently uses far more RSS memory than
>> SimpleMessenger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a link to the paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gTBZrkrnpZS1Q4VktjZkhrNHc/view
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Wheat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com