On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:04 AM, J. Eric Ivancich <ivancich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We are asking the Ceph community to provide their thoughts on this > draft proposal for expanding the librados API with calls that would > allow clients to specify QoS (quality of service) parameters for > their operations. > > We have an on-going effort to provide Ceph users with more options to > manage QoS. With the release of Luminous we introduced access to a > prototype of the mclock QoS algorithm for queuing operations by class > of operation and either differentiating clients or treating them as a > unit. Although not yet integrated, the library we're using supports > dmClock, a distributed version of mClock. Both are documented in > _mClock: Handling Throughput Variability for Hypervisor IO Scheduling_ > by Gulati, Merchant, and Varman 2010. > > In order to offer greater flexibility, we'd like to move forward with > providing clients with the ability to use different QoS parameters. We > are keeping our options open w.r.t. the ultimate set of algorithm(s) > we'll use. The mClock/dmClock algorithm allows a "client", which we > can interpret broadly, to set a minimum ops/sec (reservation) and a > maximum ops/sec (limit). Furthermore a "client" can also define a > weight (a.k.a. priority), which is a scalar value to determine > relative weighting. > > We think reservation, limit, and weight are sufficiently generic that > we'd be able to use or adapt them other QoS algorithms we may try or > use in the future. > > [To give you a sense of how broadly we can interpret "client", we > currently have code that interprets classes of operations (e.g., > background replication or background snap-trimming) as a client.] > > == Units == > > One key difference we're considering, however, is changing the unit > that reservations and limits are expressed in from ops/sec to > something more appropriate for Ceph. Operations have payloads of > different sizes and will therefore take different amounts of time, and > that should be factored in. We might refer to this as the "cost" of > the operation. And the cost is not linear with the size of the > payload. For example, a write of 4 MB might only take 20 times as long > as a write of 4 KB even though the sizes differ by a factor of > 1000. Using cost would allow us to, for example, achieve a fairer > prioritization of a client doing many small writes against a client > that's doing a few larger writes. > > One proposed formula to translate one op into cost would be something > along the lines of: > > cost_units = a + b * log(payload_size) > > where a and b would have to be chosen or tuned based on the storage > back-end. > > And that gets us to the units for defining reservation and limit -- > cost_units per unit of time. Typically these are floating point > values, however we do not use floating point types in librados calls > because qemu, when calling into librbd, does not save and restore the > cpu's floating point mode. > > There are two ways of getting appropriate ranges of values given that > we need to use integral types for cost_units per unit of time. One is > a large time unit in the denominator, such as minutes or even > hours. That would leave us with cost_units per minute. We are unsure > that the strange unit is the best approach and your feedback would be > appreciated. > > A standard alternative would be to use a standard time unit, such as > seconds, but integers as fixed-point values. So a floating-point value > in cost_units per second would be multiplied by, say, 1000 and rounded > to get the corresponding integer value. > > == librados Additions == > > The basic idea is that one would be able to create (and destroy) qos > profiles and then associate a profile with an ioctx. Ops on the ioctx > would use the qos profile associated with it. > > typedef void* rados_qos_profile_t; // opaque > > // parameters uint64_t in cost_units per time unit as discussed above > profile1 = rados_qos_profile_create(reservation, weight, limit); > > rados_ioctx_set_qos_profile(ioctx3, profile1); > > ... > // ops to ioctx3 would now use the specified profile > ... > > // use the profile just for a particular operation > rados_write_op_set_qos_prefile(op1, profile1); > > rados_ioctx_set_qos_profile(ioctx3, NULL); // set to default profile > > rados_qos_profile_destroy(profile1); Oh, one more thing I noticed. It's not clear to me from this interface if it's possible to use the same profile across more than one ioctx and have them share a common reservation. Or will it just be a configuration struct that the IoCtx uses to set up its internal tracking state, and then they run independently even if reused? -Greg > > == MOSDOp and MOSDOpReply Changes == > > Because the qos_profile would be managed by the ioctx, MOSDOps sent > via that ioctx would include the reservation, weight, and limit. At > this point we think this would be better than keeping the profiles on > the back-end, although it increases the MOSDOp data structure by about > 128 bits. > > The MOSDOp type already contains dmclock's delta and rho parameters > and MOSDOpReply already contains the dmclock phase indicator due to > prior work. Given that we're moving towards using cost_unit per > time_unit rather than ops per sec, perhaps we should also include the > calculated cost in the MOSDOpReply. > > == Conclusion == > > So that's what we're thinking about and your own thoughts and feedback > would be appreciated. Thanks! > -- > 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
