Hey, The 0.91 release includes the 'pgmeta' changes that split out the PG metadata (info and logs) across collections and should avoid some lock contention in the FileStore. Do you mind repeating this experiment with that version? Thanks! sage On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Andreas Bluemle wrote: > Hi, > > I went from using v0.88 to v0.90 and can confirm the > that performance is similar between these two versions. > > I am using config settings similar to the values given by > Somnath. > > There is one difference in my settings: where Somanth has disabled > message throttling both for the number of messages and the amount > of message data, I am using the settiings: > > "osd_client_message_size_cap": "524288000" (default) > "osd_client_message_cap": "3000" (default is 100) > > With my test profile (small, i.e. 4k, random writes), the message > size throttle is no problem - but the message count throttle > is worth to look at: > > with my test profile I hit this throttle - but this seems to depend > on the number of placement groups (or the distribution achieved > by different placement group set). > > I have configured my cluster (3 nodes, 12 osds) with 3 rbd pools: > rbd with 768 pgs (default) > rbd2 with 3000 pgs > rbd3 with 769 pgs > > I don't see any hits of message count throttle on rbd2 and rbd3 - but > on rbd, I see the message throttle hits about 3.750 times during a > test with a total of 262.144 client write request within a period > of approx. 35 seconds. All of the hits of the message count throttle > happen on a single osd; there is no hit of the message count throttle > on any of the other 11 osds. > > Sage: yesterday, you had been asking for a value of the message > count throttle where my tests start to run smoothly - and I can't > give an answer. It depends on the distribution of I/O requests > achieved by the specific set of pg's - and vice versa, a different > pattern of I/O requests will change the behavior again. > > > > Regards > > Andreas Bluemle > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:44:01 +0000 > Somnath Roy <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Stephen, > > You may want to tweak the following parameter(s) in your ceph.conf > > file and see if it is further improving your performance or not. > > > > debug_lockdep = 0/0 > > debug_context = 0/0 > > debug_crush = 0/0 > > debug_buffer = 0/0 > > debug_timer = 0/0 > > debug_filer = 0/0 > > debug_objecter = 0/0 > > debug_rados = 0/0 > > debug_rbd = 0/0 > > debug_journaler = 0/0 > > debug_objectcatcher = 0/0 > > debug_client = 0/0 > > debug_osd = 0/0 > > debug_optracker = 0/0 > > debug_objclass = 0/0 > > debug_filestore = 0/0 > > debug_journal = 0/0 > > debug_ms = 0/0 > > debug_monc = 0/0 > > debug_tp = 0/0 > > debug_auth = 0/0 > > debug_finisher = 0/0 > > debug_heartbeatmap = 0/0 > > debug_perfcounter = 0/0 > > debug_asok = 0/0 > > debug_throttle = 0/0 > > debug_mon = 0/0 > > debug_paxos = 0/0 > > debug_rgw = 0/0 > > osd_op_num_threads_per_shard = 2 //You may want to try with 1 as well > > osd_op_num_shards = 10 //Depends on your cpu util > > ms_nocrc = true > > cephx_sign_messages = false > > cephx_require_signatures = false > > ms_dispatch_throttle_bytes = 0 > > throttler_perf_counter = false > > > > [osd] > > osd_client_message_size_cap = 0 > > osd_client_message_cap = 0 > > osd_enable_op_tracker = false > > > > Also, run more clients (in your case rados bench) and see if it is > > scaling or not (it should, till it saturates your cpu). > > > > But, your observation on RHEL7 vs UBUNTU 14.04 LTS is interesting ! > > > > Thanks & Regards > > Somnath > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Blinick, > > Stephen L Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:32 PM To: Ceph > > Development Subject: RE: Memstore performance improvements v0.90 vs > > v0.87 > > > > I went back and grabbed 87 and built it on RHEL7 as well, and > > performance is also similar (much better). I've also run it on a few > > systems (Dual socket 10-core E5v2, Dual socket 6-core E5v3). So, > > it's related to my switch to RHEL7, and not to the code changes > > between v0.90 and v0.87. Will post when I get more data. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephen > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Blinick, > > Stephen L Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:06 AM To: Ceph > > Development Subject: Memstore performance improvements v0.90 vs v0.87 > > > > In the process of moving to a new cluster (RHEL7 based) I grabbed > > v0.90, compiled RPM's and re-ran the simple local-node memstore test > > I've run on .80 - .87. It's a single Memstore OSD and a single Rados > > Bench client locally on the same node. Increasing queue depth and > > measuring latency /IOPS. So far, the measurements have been > > consistent across different hardware and code releases (with about a > > 30% improvement with the OpWQ Sharding changes that came in after > > Firefly). > > > > These are just very early results, but I'm seeing a very large > > improvement in latency and throughput with v90 on RHEL7. Next I'm > > working to get lttng installed and working in RHEL7 to determine > > where the improvement is. On previous levels, these measurements > > have been roughly the same using a real (fast) backend (i.e. NVMe > > flash), and I will verify here as well. Just wondering if anyone > > else has measured similar improvements? > > > > > > 100% Reads or Writes, 4K Objects, Rados Bench > > > > ======================== > > V0.87: Ubuntu 14.04LTS > > > > *Writes* > > #Thr IOPS Latency(ms) > > 1 618.80 1.61 > > 2 1401.70 1.42 > > 4 3962.73 1.00 > > 8 7354.37 1.10 > > 16 7654.67 2.10 > > 32 7320.33 4.37 > > 64 7424.27 8.62 > > > > *Reads* > > #thr IOPS Latency(ms) > > 1 837.57 1.19 > > 2 1950.00 1.02 > > 4 6494.03 0.61 > > 8 7243.53 1.10 > > 16 7473.73 2.14 > > 32 7682.80 4.16 > > 64 7727.10 8.28 > > > > > > ======================== > > V0.90: RHEL7 > > > > *Writes* > > #Thr IOPS Latency(ms) > > 1 2558.53 0.39 > > 2 6014.67 0.33 > > 4 10061.33 0.40 > > 8 14169.60 0.56 > > 16 14355.63 1.11 > > 32 14150.30 2.26 > > 64 15283.33 4.19 > > > > *Reads* > > #Thr IOPS Latency(ms) > > 1 4535.63 0.22 > > 2 9969.73 0.20 > > 4 17049.43 0.23 > > 8 19909.70 0.40 > > 16 20320.80 0.79 > > 32 19827.93 1.61 > > 64 22371.17 2.86 > > -- > > 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 -- 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > > > PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail > > message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) > > named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended > > recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this > > message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or > > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or > > e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of > > this message in your possession (whether hard copies or > > electronically stored copies). > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Andreas Bluemle mailto:Andreas.Bluemle@xxxxxxxxxxx > ITXperts GmbH http://www.itxperts.de > Balanstrasse 73, Geb. 08 Phone: (+49) 89 89044917 > D-81541 Muenchen (Germany) Fax: (+49) 89 89044910 > > Company details: http://www.itxperts.de/imprint.htm > > -- 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
