Re: First attempt at rocksdb monitor store stress testing

[Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@inktank.com>]

Hi Xinxin,

Thanks, I'll give it a try.  I want to figure out what's going on in 
Rocksdb when the test stalls with leveled compaction.  In the mean time, 
here are the test results with spinning disks and SSDs:

http://nhm.ceph.com/mon-store-stress/Monitor_Store_Stress_Short_Tests.pdf

Mark

On 07/27/2014 11:45 PM, Shu, Xinxin wrote:
> Hi mark,
>
> I tested this option on my setup , same issue happened , I will dig into it , if you want to get info log , there is a workaround, set this option to none:
>
> Rocksdb_log = ""
>
> Cheers,
> xinxin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nelson [mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:10 AM
> To: Shu, Xinxin; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: First attempt at rocksdb monitor store stress testing
>
> Hi Xinxin,
>
> I'm trying to enable the rocksdb log file as described in config_opts using:
>
> rocksdb_log = <path to log file>
>
> The file gets created but is empty.  Any ideas?
>
> Mark
>
> On 07/24/2014 08:28 PM, Shu, Xinxin wrote:
>> Hi mark,
>>
>> I am looking forward to your results on SSDs .
>> rocksdb generates a crc of data to be written , this cannot be switch off (but can be subsititued with xxhash),  there are two options , Option. verify_checksums_in_compaction and ReadOptions. verify_checksums,  If we disable these two options , i think cpu usage will goes down . If we use universal compaction , this is not friendly with read operation.
>>
>> Btw , can you list your rocksdb configuration?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> xinxin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Nelson [mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 7:45 AM
>> To: Shu, Xinxin; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: First attempt at rocksdb monitor store stress testing
>>
>> Earlier today I modified the rocksdb options so I could enable universal compaction.  Over all performance is lower but I don't see the hang/stall in the middle of the test either.  Instead the disk is basically pegged with 100% writes.  I suspect average latency is higher than leveldb, but the highest latency is about 5-6s while we were seeing 30s spikes for leveldb with levelled (heh) compaction.
>>
>> I haven't done much tuning either way yet.  It may be that if we keep level 0 and level 1 roughly the same size we can reduce stalls in the levelled setups.  It will also be interesting to see what happens in these tests on SSDs.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 07/24/2014 06:13 AM, Mark Nelson wrote:
>>> Hi Xinxin,
>>>
>>> Thanks! I wonder as well if it might be interesting to expose the
>>> options related to universal compaction?  It looks like rocksdb
>>> provides a lot of interesting knobs you can adjust!
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 07/24/2014 12:08 AM, Shu, Xinxin wrote:
>>>> Hi mark,
>>>>
>>>> I think this maybe related to 'verify_checksums' config option ,when
>>>> ReadOptions is initialized, default this option is  true , all data
>>>> read from underlying storage will be verified against corresponding
>>>> checksums,  however,  this option cannot be configured in
>>>> wip-rocksdb branch. I will modify code to make this option configurable .
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> xinxin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>>>> [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:14 AM
>>>> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: First attempt at rocksdb monitor store stress testing
>>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> So I've been interested lately in leveldb 99th percentile latency
>>>> (and the amount of write amplification we are seeing) with leveldb.
>>>> Joao mentioned he has written a tool called mon-store-stress in
>>>> wip-leveldb-misc to try to provide a means to roughly guess at
>>>> what's happening on the mons under heavy load.  I cherry-picked it
>>>> over to wip-rocksdb and after a couple of hacks was able to get
>>>> everything built and running with some basic tests.  There was
>>>> little tuning done and I don't know how realistic this workload is,
>>>> so don't assume this means anything yet, but some initial results are here:
>>>>
>>>> http://nhm.ceph.com/mon-store-stress/First%20Attempt.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Command that was used to run the tests:
>>>>
>>>> ./ceph-test-mon-store-stress --mon-keyvaluedb <leveldb|rocksdb>
>>>> --write-min-size 50K --write-max-size 2M --percent-write 70
>>>> --percent-read 30 --keep-state --test-seed 1406137270 --stop-at 5000
>>>> foo
>>>>
>>>> The most interesting bit right now is that rocksdb seems to be
>>>> hanging in the middle of the test (left it running for several
>>>> hours).  CPU usage on one core was quite high during the hang.
>>>> Profiling using perf with dwarf symbols I see:
>>>>
>>>> -  49.14%  ceph-test-mon-s  ceph-test-mon-store-stress  [.] unsigned
>>>> int
>>>> rocksdb::crc32c::ExtendImpl<&rocksdb::crc32c::Fast_CRC32>(unsigned
>>>> int, char const*, unsigned long)
>>>>        - unsigned int
>>>> rocksdb::crc32c::ExtendImpl<&rocksdb::crc32c::Fast_CRC32>(unsigned
>>>> int, char const*, unsigned long)
>>>>             51.70%
>>>> rocksdb::ReadBlockContents(rocksdb::RandomAccessFile*,
>>>> rocksdb::Footer const&, rocksdb::ReadOptions const&,
>>>> rocksdb::BlockHandle const&, rocksdb::BlockContents*, rocksdb::Env*,
>>>> bool)
>>>>             48.30%
>>>> rocksdb::BlockBasedTableBuilder::WriteRawBlock(rocksdb::Slice
>>>> const&, rocksdb::CompressionType, rocksdb::BlockHandle*)
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what's going on yet, may need to try to enable
>>>> logging/debugging in rocksdb.  Thoughts/Suggestions welcome. :)
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>