Re: RBD fio Performance concerns

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Which iodepth did you use for those benchs?


> I really don't understand why I can't get more rand read iops with 4K block ...

Me neither, hope to get some clarification from the Inktank guys. It
doesn't make any sense to me...
--
Bien cordialement.
Sébastien HAN.


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>@Alexandre: is it the same for you? or do you always get more IOPS with seq?
>
> rand read 4K : 6000 iops
> seq read 4K : 3500 iops
> seq read 4M : 31iops (1gigabit client bandwith limit)
>
> rand write 4k: 6000iops  (tmpfs journal)
> seq write 4k: 1600iops
> seq write 4M : 31iops (1gigabit client bandwith limit)
>
>
> I really don't understand why I can't get more rand read iops with 4K block ...
>
> I try with high end cpu for client, it doesn't change nothing.
> But test cluster use  old 8 cores E5420  @ 2.50GHZ (But cpu is around 15% on cluster during read bench)
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>
> De: "Sébastien Han" <han.sebastien@xxxxxxxxx>
> À: "Mark Kampe" <mark.kampe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Novembre 2012 19:03:40
> Objet: Re: RBD fio Performance concerns
>
> @Sage, thanks for the info :)
> @Mark:
>
>> If you want to do sequential I/O, you should do it buffered
>> (so that the writes can be aggregated) or with a 4M block size
>> (very efficient and avoiding object serialization).
>
> The original benchmark has been performed with 4M block size. And as
> you can see I still get more IOPS with rand than seq... I just tried
> with 4M without direct I/O, still the same. I can print fio results if
> it's needed.
>
>> We do direct writes for benchmarking, not because it is a reasonable
>> way to do I/O, but because it bypasses the buffer cache and enables
>> us to directly measure cluster I/O throughput (which is what we are
>> trying to optimize). Applications should usually do buffered I/O,
>> to get the (very significant) benefits of caching and write aggregation.
>
> I know why I use direct I/O. It's synthetic benchmarks, it's far away
> from a real life scenario and how common applications works. I just
> try to see the maximum I/O throughput that I can get from my RBD. All
> my applications use buffered I/O.
>
> @Alexandre: is it the same for you? or do you always get more IOPS with seq?
>
> Thanks to all of you..
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Mark Kampe <mark.kampe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Recall:
>> 1. RBD volumes are striped (4M wide) across RADOS objects
>> 2. distinct writes to a single RADOS object are serialized
>>
>> Your sequential 4K writes are direct, depth=256, so there are
>> (at all times) 256 writes queued to the same object. All of
>> your writes are waiting through a very long line, which is adding
>> horrendous latency.
>>
>> If you want to do sequential I/O, you should do it buffered
>> (so that the writes can be aggregated) or with a 4M block size
>> (very efficient and avoiding object serialization).
>>
>> We do direct writes for benchmarking, not because it is a reasonable
>> way to do I/O, but because it bypasses the buffer cache and enables
>> us to directly measure cluster I/O throughput (which is what we are
>> trying to optimize). Applications should usually do buffered I/O,
>> to get the (very significant) benefits of caching and write aggregation.
>>
>>
>>> That's correct for some of the benchmarks. However even with 4K for
>>> seq, I still get less IOPS. See below my last fio:
>>>
>>> # fio rbd-bench.fio
>>> seq-read: (g=0): rw=read, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=256
>>> rand-read: (g=1): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio,
>>> iodepth=256
>>> seq-write: (g=2): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=256
>>> rand-write: (g=3): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio,
>>> iodepth=256
>>> fio 1.59
>>> Starting 4 processes
>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [___w] [57.6% done] [0K/405K /s] [0 /99 iops] [eta
>>> 02m:59s]
>>> seq-read: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=15096
>>> read : io=801892KB, bw=13353KB/s, iops=3338 , runt= 60053msec
>>> slat (usec): min=8 , max=45921 , avg=296.69, stdev=1584.90
>>> clat (msec): min=18 , max=133 , avg=76.37, stdev=16.63
>>> lat (msec): min=18 , max=133 , avg=76.67, stdev=16.62
>>> bw (KB/s) : min= 0, max=14406, per=31.89%, avg=4258.24,
>>> stdev=6239.06
>>> cpu : usr=0.87%, sys=5.57%, ctx=165281, majf=0, minf=279
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%,
>>> >=64=100.0%
>>> 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=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>> >=64=0.1%
>>> issued r/w/d: total=200473/0/0, short=0/0/0
>>>
>>> lat (msec): 20=0.01%, 50=9.46%, 100=90.45%, 250=0.10%
>>> rand-read: (groupid=1, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=16846
>>> read : io=6376.4MB, bw=108814KB/s, iops=27203 , runt= 60005msec
>>> slat (usec): min=8 , max=12723 , avg=33.54, stdev=59.87
>>> clat (usec): min=4642 , max=55760 , avg=9374.10, stdev=970.40
>>> lat (usec): min=4671 , max=55788 , avg=9408.00, stdev=971.21
>>> bw (KB/s) : min=105496, max=109136, per=100.00%, avg=108815.48,
>>> stdev=648.62
>>> cpu : usr=8.26%, sys=49.11%, ctx=1486259, majf=0, minf=278
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%,
>>> >=64=100.0%
>>> 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=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>> >=64=0.1%
>>> issued r/w/d: total=1632349/0/0, short=0/0/0
>>>
>>> lat (msec): 10=83.39%, 20=16.56%, 50=0.04%, 100=0.01%
>>> seq-write: (groupid=2, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=18653
>>> write: io=44684KB, bw=753502 B/s, iops=183 , runt= 60725msec
>>> slat (usec): min=8 , max=1246.8K, avg=5402.76, stdev=40024.97
>>> clat (msec): min=25 , max=4868 , avg=1384.22, stdev=470.19
>>> lat (msec): min=25 , max=4868 , avg=1389.62, stdev=470.17
>>> bw (KB/s) : min= 7, max= 2165, per=104.03%, avg=764.65,
>>> stdev=353.97
>>> cpu : usr=0.05%, sys=0.35%, ctx=5478, majf=0, minf=21
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.3%,
>>> >=64=99.4%
>>> 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=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>> >=64=0.1%
>>> issued r/w/d: total=0/11171/0, short=0/0/0
>>>
>>> lat (msec): 50=0.21%, 100=0.44%, 250=0.97%, 500=1.49%, 750=4.60%
>>> lat (msec): 1000=12.73%, 2000=66.36%, >=2000=13.20%
>>> rand-write: (groupid=3, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=20446
>>> write: io=208588KB, bw=3429.5KB/s, iops=857 , runt= 60822msec
>>> slat (usec): min=10 , max=1693.9K, avg=1148.15, stdev=15210.37
>>> clat (msec): min=22 , max=5639 , avg=297.37, stdev=430.27
>>> lat (msec): min=22 , max=5639 , avg=298.52, stdev=430.84
>>> bw (KB/s) : min= 0, max= 7728, per=31.44%, avg=1078.21,
>>> stdev=2000.45
>>> cpu : usr=0.34%, sys=1.61%, ctx=37183, majf=0, minf=19
>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%,
>>> >=64=99.9%
>>> 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=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>>> >=64=0.1%
>>> issued r/w/d: total=0/52147/0, short=0/0/0
>>>
>>> lat (msec): 50=2.82%, 100=25.63%, 250=46.12%, 500=10.36%, 750=5.10%
>>> lat (msec): 1000=2.91%, 2000=5.75%, >=2000=1.33%
>>>
>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=801892KB, aggrb=13353KB/s, minb=13673KB/s, maxb=13673KB/s,
>>> mint=60053msec, maxt=60053msec
>>>
>>> Run status group 1 (all jobs):
>>> READ: io=6376.4MB, aggrb=108814KB/s, minb=111425KB/s,
>>> maxb=111425KB/s, mint=60005msec, maxt=60005msec
>>>
>>> Run status group 2 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=44684KB, aggrb=735KB/s, minb=753KB/s, maxb=753KB/s,
>>> mint=60725msec, maxt=60725msec
>>>
>>> Run status group 3 (all jobs):
>>> WRITE: io=208588KB, aggrb=3429KB/s, minb=3511KB/s, maxb=3511KB/s,
>>> mint=60822msec, maxt=60822msec
>>>
>>> Disk stats (read/write):
>>> rbd1: ios=1832984/63270, merge=0/0, ticks=16374236/17012132,
>>> in_queue=33434120, util=99.79%
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux