All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Multiple network connections for a single NFS mount.
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:52:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f8f4413-ca7a-7e42-4adb-618b9d4d0415@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a7enwvvs.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>


On 6/11/2019 7:21 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11 2019, Tom Talpey wrote:
>>
>> I really hope nconnect is not just a workaround for some undiscovered
>> performance issue. All that does is kick the can down the road.
> 
> This is one of my fears too.
> 
> My current perspective is to ask
>    "What do hardware designers optimise for".
> because the speeds we are looking at really require various bits of
> hardware to be working together harmoniously.
> 
> In context, that question becomes "Do they optimise for single
> connection throughput, or multiple connection throughput".

I assume you mean NIC hardware designers. The answer is both of
course, but there are distinct advantages in the multiple-connection
case. The main feature is RSS - Receive Side Scaling - which computes
a hash of each 5-tuple-based IP flow and spreads interrupts based on
the value. Generally speaking, that's why multiple connections can
speed up a single NIC, on today's high core count machines.

RDMA has a similar capability, by more explicitly directing its
CQs - Completion Queues - to multiple cores. Of course, RDMA has
further abilities to reduce CPU overhead through direct data placement.

> Given the amount of money in web-services, I think multiple connection
> throughput is most likely to provide dollars.
> I also think that is would be a lot easier to parallelise than single
> connection.

Yep, that's another advantage. As you observe, this kind of parallelism
is easier to achieve on the server side. IOW, this helps both ends of
the connection.

> So if we NFS developers want to work with the strengths of the hardware,
> I think multiple connections and increased parallelism is a sensible
> long-term strategy.
> 
> So while I cannot rule out any undiscovered performance issue, I don't
> think this is just kicking the can down the road.

Agreed. But driving this to one or two dozen connections is different.
Typical NICs have relatively small RSS limits, and even if they have
more, the system's core count and MSI-X vectors (interrupt steering)
rarely approach this kind of limit. If you measure the improvement
vs connection count, you'll find it increases sharply at 2 or 4, then
flattens out. At that point, the complexity takes over and you'll only
see the advantage in a lab. In the real world, a very different picture
emerges, and it can be very un-pretty.

Just some advice, that's all.

Tom.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-12 12:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-30  0:41 [PATCH 0/9] Multiple network connections for a single NFS mount NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 2/9] SUNRPC: Allow creation of RPC clients with multiple connections NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 9/9] NFS: Allow multiple connections to a NFSv2 or NFSv3 server NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 4/9] SUNRPC: enhance rpc_clnt_show_stats() to report on all xprts NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 5/9] SUNRPC: add links for all client xprts to debugfs NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 3/9] NFS: send state management on a single connection NeilBrown
2019-07-23 18:11   ` Schumaker, Anna
2019-07-23 22:54     ` NeilBrown
2019-07-31  2:05     ` [PATCH] NFS: add flags arg to nfs4_call_sync_sequence() NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 8/9] pNFS: Allow multiple connections to the DS NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 1/9] SUNRPC: Add basic load balancing to the transport switch NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 7/9] NFSv4: Allow multiple connections to NFSv4.x servers NeilBrown
2019-05-30  0:41 ` [PATCH 6/9] NFS: Add a mount option to specify number of TCP connections to use NeilBrown
2019-05-30 17:05 ` [PATCH 0/9] Multiple network connections for a single NFS mount Tom Talpey
2019-05-30 17:20   ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-05-30 17:41     ` Tom Talpey
2019-05-30 18:41       ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-05-31  1:45         ` Tom Talpey
2019-05-30 22:38       ` NeilBrown
2019-05-31  1:48         ` Tom Talpey
2019-05-31  2:31           ` NeilBrown
2019-05-31 12:39             ` Tom Talpey
2019-05-30 23:53     ` Rick Macklem
2019-05-31  0:15       ` J. Bruce Fields
2019-05-31  1:01       ` NeilBrown
2019-05-31  2:20         ` Rick Macklem
2019-05-31 12:36           ` Tom Talpey
2019-05-31 13:33             ` Trond Myklebust
2019-05-30 17:56 ` Chuck Lever
2019-05-30 18:59   ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-05-30 22:56   ` NeilBrown
2019-05-31 13:46     ` Chuck Lever
2019-05-31 15:38       ` J. Bruce Fields
2019-06-11  1:09       ` NeilBrown
2019-06-11 14:51         ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-11 15:05           ` Tom Talpey
2019-06-11 15:20           ` Trond Myklebust
2019-06-11 15:35             ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-11 16:41               ` Trond Myklebust
2019-06-11 17:32                 ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-11 17:44                   ` Trond Myklebust
2019-06-12 12:34                     ` Steve Dickson
2019-06-12 12:47                       ` Trond Myklebust
2019-06-12 13:10                         ` Trond Myklebust
2019-06-11 15:34           ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-06-11 17:46             ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-11 19:13               ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-06-11 20:02                 ` Tom Talpey
2019-06-11 20:09                   ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-11 21:10                     ` Olga Kornievskaia
2019-06-11 21:35                       ` Tom Talpey
2019-06-11 22:55                         ` NeilBrown
2019-06-12 12:55                           ` Tom Talpey
2019-06-11 23:02                       ` NeilBrown
2019-06-11 23:21                   ` NeilBrown
2019-06-12 12:52                     ` Tom Talpey [this message]
2019-06-11 23:42               ` NeilBrown
2019-06-12 12:39                 ` Steve Dickson
2019-06-12 17:36                 ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-12 23:03                   ` NeilBrown
2019-06-13 16:13                     ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-12  1:49           ` NeilBrown
2019-06-12 18:32             ` Chuck Lever
2019-06-12 23:37               ` NeilBrown
2019-06-13 16:27                 ` Chuck Lever
2019-05-31  0:24 ` J. Bruce Fields

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5f8f4413-ca7a-7e42-4adb-618b9d4d0415@talpey.com \
    --to=tom@talpey.com \
    --cc=Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com \
    --cc=aglo@umich.edu \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.