On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:55 PM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:23 AM Yan, Zheng <ukernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:06 PM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Zheng,
> >>
> >> Thanks for this really nice set of PRs -- we will try them at our site
> >> the next weeks and try to come back with practical feedback.
> >> A few questions:
> >>
> >> 1. How many clients did you scale to, with improvements in the 2nd PR?
> >
> >
> > We have FS clusters with over 10k clients. If you find CInode::get_caps_{issued,wanted} and/or EOpen::encode use lots of CPU, That PR should help.
>
> That's an impressive number, relevant for our possible future plans.
>
> >
> >> 2. Do these PRs improve the process of scaling up/down the number of active MDS?
> >
> >
> > What problem you encountered? Decreasing active MDS works well (although a little slow) in my local test. migrating big subtree (after increasing active MDS) can cause slow OPS, the 3rd PR solves it.
>
> Stopping has in the past taken ~30mins, with slow requests while the
> pinned subtrees are re-imported.
This case should be improved by the 3rd PR. subtree migrations are
smoother and smoother.
>
>
> -- dan
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:21 AM Yan, Zheng <ukernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Following PRs are optimization we (Kuaishou) made for machine learning
> >> > workloads (randomly read billions of small files) .
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/39315
> >> > [2] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/43126
> >> > [3] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/43125
> >> >
> >> > The first PR adds an option that disables dirfrag prefetch. When files
> >> > are accessed randomly, dirfrag prefetch adds lots of useless files to
> >> > cache and causes cache thrash. Performance of MDS can be dropped below
> >> > 100 RPS. When dirfrag prefetch is disabled, MDS sends a getomapval
> >> > request to rados for cache missed lookup. Single mds can handle about
> >> > 6k cache missed lookup requests per second (all ssd metadata pool).
> >> >
> >> > The second PR optimizes MDS performance for a large number of clients
> >> > and a large number of read-only opened files. It also can greatly
> >> > reduce mds recovery time for read-mostly wordload.
> >> >
> >> > The third PR makes MDS cluster randomly distribute all dirfrags. MDS
> >> > uses consistent hash to calculate target rank for each dirfrag.
> >> > Compared to dynamic balancer and subtree pin, metadata can be
> >> > distributed among MDSs more evenly. Besides, MDS only migrates single
> >> > dirfrag (instead of big subtree) for load balancing. So MDS has
> >> > shorter pause when doing metadata migration. The drawbacks of this
> >> > change are: stat(2) directory can be slow; rename(2) file to
> >> > different directory can be slow. The reason is, with random dirfrag
> >> > distribution, these operations likely involve multiple MDS.
> >> >
> >> > Above three PRs are all merged into an integration branch
> >> > https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-mds-integration.
> >> >
> >> > We (Kuaishou) have run these codes for months, 16 active MDS cluster
> >> > serve billions of small files. In file random read test, single MDS
> >> > can handle about 6k ops, performance increases linearly with the
> >> > number of active MDS. In file creation test (mpirun -np 160 -host
> >> > xxx:160 mdtest -F -L -w 4096 -z 2 -b 10 -I 200 -u -d ...), 16 active
> >> > MDS can serve over 100k file creation per second.
> >> >
> >> > Yan, Zheng
