No, I'm not using RDMA in this configuration since this will eventually get deployed to production with 10G ethernet (yes RDMA is faster). I would prefer Ceph because it has a storage drive built into OpenNebula which my company is using and as you mentioned individual drives.
I'm not sure what the problem is but it appears to me that one of the hosts may be holding up the rest... with Ceph if the performance of one of the hosts is much faster than others could this potentially slow down the cluster to this level?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With GlusterFS are you using the native RDMA support?
Ceph and Gluster tend to prefer pretty different disk setups too. Afaik RH still recommends RAID6 beind each brick while we do better with individual disks behind each OSD. You might want to watch the OSD admin socket and see if operations are backing up on any specific OSDs.
Mark
On 04/09/2013 12:54 PM, Ziemowit Pierzycki wrote:
Neither made a difference. I also have a glusterFS cluster with two
nodes in replicating mode residing on 1TB drives:
[root@triton speed]# dd conv=fdatasync if=/dev/zero
of=/mnt/speed/test.out bs=512k count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 43.573 s, 120 MB/s
... and Ceph:
[root@triton temp]# dd conv=fdatasync if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/temp/test.out
bs=512k count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 366.911 s, 14.3 MB/s
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxxecho 0 | tee /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp___moderate_rcvbuf<mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.com>> wrote:
On 04/08/2013 04:12 PM, Ziemowit Pierzycki wrote:
There is one SSD in each node. IPoIB performance is about 7 gbps
between each host. CephFS is mounted via kernel client. Ceph
version
is ceph-0.56.3-1. I have a 1GB journal on the same drive as the
OSD but
on a seperate file system split via LVM.
Here is output of another test with fdatasync:
[root@triton temp]# dd conv=fdatasync if=/dev/zero
of=/mnt/temp/test.out
bs=512k count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 359.307 s, 14.6 MB/s
[root@triton temp]# dd if=/mnt/temp/test.out of=/dev/null bs=512k
count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 14.0521 s, 373 MB/s
Definitely seems off! How many SSDs are involved and how fast are
they each? The MTU idea might have merit, but I honestly don't know
enough about how well IPoIB handles giant MTUs like that. One thing
I have noticed on other IPoIB setups is that TCP autotuning can
cause a ton of problems. You may want to try disabling it on all of
the hosts involved:
<mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.__com
If that doesn't work, maybe try setting MTU to 9000 or 1500 if possible.
Mark
The network traffic appears to match the transfer speeds shown
here too.
Writing is very slow.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Mark Nelson
<mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.com>
<mailto:mark.nelson@inktank.com>>> wrote:
Hi,
How many drives? Have you tested your IPoIB performance
with iperf?
Is this CephFS with the kernel client? What version of
Ceph? How
are your journals configured? etc. It's tough to make any
recommendations without knowing more about what you are doing.
Also, please use conv=fdatasync when doing buffered IO
writes with dd.
Thanks,
Mark
On 04/08/2013 03:00 PM, Ziemowit Pierzycki wrote:
Hi,
The first test was writing 500 mb file and was clocked
at 1.2
GBps. The
second test was writing 5000 mb file at 17 MBps. The
third test was
reading the file at ~400 MBps.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Gregory Farnum
<greg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
<mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
More details, please. You ran the same test twice and
performance went
up from 17.5MB/s to 394MB/s? How many drives in
each node,
and of what
kind?
-Greg
Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com |
http://ceph.com
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Ziemowit Pierzycki
<ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>__>
<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ___________________________________________________<mailto:ziemowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>__>__>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 3 node SSD-backed cluster connected over
infiniband (16K
MTU) and
> here is the performance I am seeing:
>
> [root@triton temp]# !dd
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/temp/test.out bs=512k
count=1000
> 1000+0 records in
> 1000+0 records out
> 524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 0.436249 s,
1.2 GB/s
> [root@triton temp]# dd if=/dev/zero
of=/mnt/temp/test.out bs=512k
> count=10000
> 10000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 299.077 s,
17.5 MB/s
> [root@triton temp]# dd if=/mnt/temp/test.out
of=/dev/null bs=512k
> count=1000010000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 13.3015 s,
394 MB/s
>
> Does that look right? How do I check this is
not a network
problem, because
> I remember seeing a kernel issue related to
large MTU.
><mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.__com
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>>
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.>____com
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.__com
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>>>
>
http://lists.ceph.com/____listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.____com
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com>
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com
<http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>>
>
___________________________________________________http://lists.ceph.com/____listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.____com
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.__com
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>>
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com>
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com
<http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>>
___________________________________________________http://lists.ceph.com/____listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.____com
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.__com
<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>>
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com>
<http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com
<http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>>
_________________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com
<http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
_________________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
http://lists.ceph.com/__listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.__com
<http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
