* Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison @ 2015-02-17 17:37 Mark Nelson [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-17 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ceph-devel; +Cc: ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --] Hi All, I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. Mark [-- Attachment #2: Ceph_SSD_OSD_Performance.pdf --] [-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 116024 bytes --] [-- Attachment #3: 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] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 18:07 ` Irek Fasikhov 2015-02-18 15:08 ` Andrei Mikhailovsky 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Irek Fasikhov @ 2015-02-17 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --] Mark, very very good! 2015-02-17 20:37 GMT+03:00 Mark Nelson <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>: > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look > at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This > is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't > offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high > level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing > list have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it > useful. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 1529 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] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:07 ` Irek Fasikhov @ 2015-02-18 15:08 ` Andrei Mikhailovsky 2015-02-18 15:44 ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Andrei Mikhailovsky @ 2015-02-18 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw, ceph-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1925 bytes --] Mark, many thanks for your effort and ceph performance tests. This puts things in perspective. Looking at the results, I was a bit concerned that the IOPs performance in niether releases come even marginally close to the capabilities of the underlying ssd device. Even the fastest PCI ssds have only managed to achieve about the 1/6th IOPs of the raw device. I guess there is a great deal more optimisations to be done in the upcoming LTS releases to make the IOPs rate close to the raw device performance. I have done some testing in the past and noticed that despite the server having a lot of unused resources (about 40-50% server idle and about 60-70% ssd idle) the ceph would not perform well when used with ssds. I was testing with Firefly + auth and my IOPs rate was around the 3K mark. Something is holding ceph back from performing well with ssds ((( Andrei ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> > To: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org> > Cc: ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February, 2015 5:37:01 PM > Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore > performance comparison > Hi All, > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to > look > at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS > releases. > This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also > doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just > a > first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors > folks > on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I > hope you find it useful. > Mark > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2547 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] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-18 15:08 ` Andrei Mikhailovsky @ 2015-02-18 15:44 ` Mark Nelson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-18 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrei Mikhailovsky; +Cc: ceph-users, ceph-devel Hi Andrei, On 02/18/2015 09:08 AM, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > > Mark, many thanks for your effort and ceph performance tests. This puts > things in perspective. > > Looking at the results, I was a bit concerned that the IOPs performance > in niether releases come even marginally close to the capabilities of > the underlying ssd device. Even the fastest PCI ssds have only managed > to achieve about the 1/6th IOPs of the raw device. Perspective is definitely good! Any time you are dealing with latency sensitive workloads, there are a lot of bottlenecks that can limit your performance. There's a world of difference between streaming data to a raw SSD as fast as possible and writing data out to a distributed storage system that is calculating data placement, invoking the TCP stack, doing CRC checks, journaling writes, invoking the VM layer to cache data in case it's hot (which in this case it's not). > > I guess there is a great deal more optimisations to be done in the > upcoming LTS releases to make the IOPs rate close to the raw device > performance. There is definitely still room for improvement! It's important to remember though that there is always going to be a trade off between flexibility, data integrity, and performance. If low latency is your number one need before anything else, you are probably best off eliminating as much software as possible between you and the device (except possibly if you can make clever use of caching). While Ceph itself is some times the bottleneck, in many cases we've found that bottlenecks in the software that surrounds Ceph are just as big obstacles (filesystem, VM layer, TCP stack, leveldb, etc). If you need a distributed storage system that can universally maintain native SSD levels of performance, the entire stack has to be highly tuned. > > I have done some testing in the past and noticed that despite the server > having a lot of unused resources (about 40-50% server idle and about > 60-70% ssd idle) the ceph would not perform well when used with ssds. I > was testing with Firefly + auth and my IOPs rate was around the 3K mark. > Something is holding ceph back from performing well with ssds ((( Out of curiosity, did you try the same tests directly on the SSD? > > Andrei > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From: *"Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com> > *To: *"ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> > *Cc: *ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Sent: *Tuesday, 17 February, 2015 5:37:01 PM > *Subject: *[ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore > performance comparison > > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to > look > at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. > This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also > doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a > first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks > on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I > hope you find it useful. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-17 17:37 Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Mark Nelson [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 20:16 ` Stephen Hindle [not found] ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 20:28 ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson [not found] ` <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv> 2015-02-23 5:09 ` [ceph-users] " Gregory Farnum 3 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hindle @ 2015-02-17 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users I was wondering what the 'CBT' tool is ? Google is useless for that acronym... Thanks! Steve On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at > how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is > just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer > any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level > step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list > have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- The information in this message may be confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 20:24 ` Tyler Brekke 2015-02-17 20:25 ` Karan Singh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Tyler Brekke @ 2015-02-17 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hindle; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1699 bytes --] https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/cbt On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hindle <shindle-zIyXdg6N6CA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > I was wondering what the 'CBT' tool is ? Google is useless for that > acronym... > > Thanks! > Steve > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look > at > > how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This > is > > just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't > offer > > any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high > level > > step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list > > have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it > useful. > > > > Mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > -- > The information in this message may be confidential. It is intended solely > for > the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, > copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by > you > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately > contact the sender if you have received this message in error. > > -- > 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 > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2641 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] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 20:24 ` Tyler Brekke @ 2015-02-17 20:25 ` Karan Singh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Karan Singh @ 2015-02-17 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw [-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2056 bytes --] Thanks Mark , for a superb explanation . This is indeed very useful. **************************************************************** Karan Singh Systems Specialist , Storage Platforms CSC - IT Center for Science, Keilaranta 14, P. O. Box 405, FIN-02101 Espoo, Finland mobile: +358 503 812758 tel. +358 9 4572001 fax +358 9 4572302 http://www.csc.fi/ **************************************************************** > On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:16, Stephen Hindle <shindle-zIyXdg6N6CA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I was wondering what the 'CBT' tool is ? Google is useless for that acronym... > > Thanks! > Steve > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at >> how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is >> just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer >> any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level >> step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list >> have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. >> >> Mark >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > > -- > The information in this message may be confidential. It is intended solely > for > the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, > copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by > you > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately > contact the sender if you have received this message in error. > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com [-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6636 bytes --] [-- Attachment #1.2: smime.p7s --] [-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4436 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] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-17 20:16 ` Stephen Hindle [not found] ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 20:28 ` Mark Nelson 2015-02-17 20:30 ` Stephen Hindle 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-17 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hindle; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users Hi Stephen, It's a benchmark automation tool we wrote that builds a ceph cluster and then runs benchmarks against it. It's still pretty rough (no real error checking, no documentation, etc). We have some partners that are interested in using it too and I'd like to make it useful for the community so we're going to try to make it a bit more accessible. cbt is here: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/cbt We've also been using it to prototype nightly performance testing of firefly and master for the last month or two on some of our lab nodes. The cron job and test suites are here: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/regression Mark On 02/17/2015 02:16 PM, Stephen Hindle wrote: > I was wondering what the 'CBT' tool is ? Google is useless for that acronym... > > Thanks! > Steve > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at >> how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is >> just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer >> any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level >> step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list >> have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. >> >> Mark >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-17 20:28 ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-17 20:30 ` Stephen Hindle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hindle @ 2015-02-17 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users Awesome! Thanks Much! On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > It's a benchmark automation tool we wrote that builds a ceph cluster and > then runs benchmarks against it. It's still pretty rough (no real error > checking, no documentation, etc). We have some partners that are > interested in using it too and I'd like to make it useful for the community > so we're going to try to make it a bit more accessible. > > cbt is here: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/cbt > > We've also been using it to prototype nightly performance testing of firefly > and master for the last month or two on some of our lab nodes. The cron job > and test suites are here: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/regression > > Mark > > > > On 02/17/2015 02:16 PM, Stephen Hindle wrote: >> >> I was wondering what the 'CBT' tool is ? Google is useless for that >> acronym... >> >> Thanks! >> Steve >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look >>> at >>> how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This >>> is >>> just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't >>> offer >>> any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high >>> level >>> step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list >>> have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it >>> useful. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>> >> > -- The information in this message may be confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv>]
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv> @ 2015-02-18 8:34 ` Alexandre DERUMIER [not found] ` <1298645585.1174612.1424248460594.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-02-18 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users Nice Work Mark ! I don't see any tuning about sharding in the config file sample (osd_op_num_threads_per_shard,osd_op_num_shards,...) as you only use 1 ssd for the bench, I think it should improve results for hammer ? ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com> À: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> Envoyé: Mardi 17 Février 2015 18:37:01 Objet: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Hi All, I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. Mark _______________________________________________ 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] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1298645585.1174612.1424248460594.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <1298645585.1174612.1424248460594.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-18 14:56 ` Mark Nelson [not found] ` <1106171324.1261740.1424278497950.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-18 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre DERUMIER; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users Hi Alex, Thanks! I didn't tweak the sharding settings at all, so they are just at the default values: OPTION(osd_op_num_threads_per_shard, OPT_INT, 2) OPTION(osd_op_num_shards, OPT_INT, 5) I don't have really good insight yet into how tweaking these would affect single-osd performance. I know the PCIe SSDs do have multiple controllers on-board so perhaps increasing the number of shards would improve things, but I suspect that going too high could maybe start hurting performance as well. Have you done any testing here? It could be an interesting follow-up paper. Mark On 02/18/2015 02:34 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > Nice Work Mark ! > > I don't see any tuning about sharding in the config file sample > > (osd_op_num_threads_per_shard,osd_op_num_shards,...) > > as you only use 1 ssd for the bench, I think it should improve results for hammer ? > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com> > À: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > Envoyé: Mardi 17 Février 2015 18:37:01 > Objet: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison > > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look > at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. > This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also > doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a > first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks > on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I > hope you find it useful. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1106171324.1261740.1424278497950.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison [not found] ` <1106171324.1261740.1424278497950.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-18 16:57 ` Alexandre DERUMIER 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Alexandre DERUMIER @ 2015-02-18 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel, ceph-users >>I don't have really good insight yet into how tweaking these would >>affect single-osd performance. I know the PCIe SSDs do have multiple >>controllers on-board so perhaps increasing the number of shards would >>improve things, but I suspect that going too high could maybe start >>hurting performance as well. Have you done any testing here? It could >>be an interesting follow-up paper. I think it should be tunned regarding number of osds and number of cores you have. I have done test in past with sommath values osd_op_num_threads_per_shard = 1 osd_op_num_shards = 25 filestore_fd_cache_size = 64 filestore_fd_cache_shards = 32 But don't have take time to try differents values. But I was to be able to reach 120000iops 4k read with 3osd if I remember. (But I was limited by client cpu) I'm going to do big benchmark next month (3 nodes (20cores) with 6ssd each), So I'll try to test different sharding values, with different number of osd. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 18 Février 2015 15:56:44 Objet: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Hi Alex, Thanks! I didn't tweak the sharding settings at all, so they are just at the default values: OPTION(osd_op_num_threads_per_shard, OPT_INT, 2) OPTION(osd_op_num_shards, OPT_INT, 5) I don't have really good insight yet into how tweaking these would affect single-osd performance. I know the PCIe SSDs do have multiple controllers on-board so perhaps increasing the number of shards would improve things, but I suspect that going too high could maybe start hurting performance as well. Have you done any testing here? It could be an interesting follow-up paper. Mark On 02/18/2015 02:34 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > Nice Work Mark ! > > I don't see any tuning about sharding in the config file sample > > (osd_op_num_threads_per_shard,osd_op_num_shards,...) > > as you only use 1 ssd for the bench, I think it should improve results for hammer ? > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@redhat.com> > À: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: "ceph-users" <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > Envoyé: Mardi 17 Février 2015 18:37:01 > Objet: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison > > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look > at how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. > This is just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also > doesn't offer any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a > first high level step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks > on the mailing list have reported over the last couple of releases. I > hope you find it useful. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-17 17:37 Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Mark Nelson ` (2 preceding siblings ...) [not found] ` <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv> @ 2015-02-23 5:09 ` Gregory Farnum 2015-02-23 5:34 ` Haomai Wang 2015-02-23 14:46 ` Mark Nelson 3 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Gregory Farnum @ 2015-02-23 5:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Nelson; +Cc: ceph-devel On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at > how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is > just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer > any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level > step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list > have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. Do you have any work scheduled to examine the synchronous IO latency changes across versions? I suspect those are involved with the loss of performance some users have reported, and I've not heard any believable theories as to the cause. Since this is the first set of results pointing that way on hardware available for detailed tests I hope we can dig into it. And those per-op latencies are the next thing we'll need to cut down on, since they correspond pretty directly with CPU costs that we want to scale down! :) -Greg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-23 5:09 ` [ceph-users] " Gregory Farnum @ 2015-02-23 5:34 ` Haomai Wang 2015-02-23 14:46 ` Mark Nelson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Haomai Wang @ 2015-02-23 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gregory Farnum; +Cc: Mark Nelson, ceph-devel I don't have detail perf number for sync io latency now. But a few days ago I did single OSD single io depth benchmark. In short, Firefly > Dumpling > Hammer per op latency. It's great to see Mark's benchmark result! As for pcie ssd, I think ceph can't make full use of it currently for one OSD. We may need to mainly focus on sata-ssd improvments. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Gregory Farnum <greg@gregs42.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at >> how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is >> just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer >> any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level >> step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list >> have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. > > Do you have any work scheduled to examine the synchronous IO latency > changes across versions? I suspect those are involved with the loss of > performance some users have reported, and I've not heard any > believable theories as to the cause. Since this is the first set of > results pointing that way on hardware available for detailed tests I > hope we can dig into it. And those per-op latencies are the next thing > we'll need to cut down on, since they correspond pretty directly with > CPU costs that we want to scale down! :) > -Greg > -- > 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 -- Best Regards, Wheat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison 2015-02-23 5:09 ` [ceph-users] " Gregory Farnum 2015-02-23 5:34 ` Haomai Wang @ 2015-02-23 14:46 ` Mark Nelson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Nelson @ 2015-02-23 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gregory Farnum; +Cc: ceph-devel On 02/22/2015 11:09 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I wrote up a short document describing some tests I ran recently to look at >> how SSD backed OSD performance has changed across our LTS releases. This is >> just looking at RADOS performance and not RBD or RGW. It also doesn't offer >> any real explanations regarding the results. It's just a first high level >> step toward understanding some of the behaviors folks on the mailing list >> have reported over the last couple of releases. I hope you find it useful. > > Do you have any work scheduled to examine the synchronous IO latency > changes across versions? I suspect those are involved with the loss of > performance some users have reported, and I've not heard any > believable theories as to the cause. Since this is the first set of > results pointing that way on hardware available for detailed tests I > hope we can dig into it. And those per-op latencies are the next thing > we'll need to cut down on, since they correspond pretty directly with > CPU costs that we want to scale down! :) I kind of suspect that some of the user issues might be RBD on the client side (or even QEMU). Certainly possible it's OSD too though. With so many different kinds of hardware and so many ways to tune things it can be tough to narrow down. I'm really looking forward to the work that's being done on LTTNG tracing. That will give us much easier insight into these kinds of things than we've had in the past. > -Greg > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-23 14:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-02-17 17:37 Ceph Dumpling/Firefly/Hammer SSD/Memstore performance comparison Mark Nelson [not found] ` <54E37C3D.5030702-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:07 ` Irek Fasikhov 2015-02-18 15:08 ` Andrei Mikhailovsky 2015-02-18 15:44 ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson 2015-02-17 20:16 ` Stephen Hindle [not found] ` <CANPbtN830yy7AJ6ziWr7V7sN80vHobpy7j8XwGpFizhd7fJynQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 20:24 ` Tyler Brekke 2015-02-17 20:25 ` Karan Singh 2015-02-17 20:28 ` [ceph-users] " Mark Nelson 2015-02-17 20:30 ` Stephen Hindle [not found] ` <974800637.1174441.1424248449764.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv> 2015-02-18 8:34 ` Alexandre DERUMIER [not found] ` <1298645585.1174612.1424248460594.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-18 14:56 ` Mark Nelson [not found] ` <1106171324.1261740.1424278497950.JavaMail.zimbra-M8QNeUgB6UTyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-18 16:57 ` Alexandre DERUMIER 2015-02-23 5:09 ` [ceph-users] " Gregory Farnum 2015-02-23 5:34 ` Haomai Wang 2015-02-23 14:46 ` Mark Nelson
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.