On 02/03/2014 07:29 PM, Gruher, Joseph R wrote:
Hi folks- I’m having trouble demonstrating reasonable performance of RBDs. I’m running Ceph 0.72.2 on Ubuntu 13.04 with the 3.12 kernel. I have four dual-Xeon servers, each with 24GB RAM, and an Intel 320 SSD for journals and four WD 10K RPM SAS drives for OSDs, all connected with an LSI 1078. This is just a lab experiment using scrounged hardware so everything isn’t sized to be a Ceph cluster, it’s just what I have lying around, but I should have more than enough CPU and memory resources. Everything is connected with a single 10GbE. When testing with RBDs from four clients (also running Ubuntu 13.04 with 3.12 kernel) I am having trouble breaking 300 IOPS on a 4KB random read or write workload (cephx set to none, replication set to one). IO is generated using FIO from four clients, each hosting a single 1TB RBD, and I’ve experimented with queue depths and increasing the number of RBDs without any benefit. 300 IOPS for a pool of 16 10K RPM HDDs seems quite low, not to mention the journal should provide a good boost on write workloads. When I run a 4KB object write workload in Cosbench I can approach 3500 Obj/Sec which seems more reasonable. Sample FIO configuration: [global] ioengine=libaio direct=1 ramp_time=300 runtime=300 [4k-rw] description=4k-rw filename=/dev/rbd1 rw=randwrite bs=4k stonewall I use --iodepth=X on the FIO command line to set the queue depth when testing. I notice in the FIO output despite the iodepth setting it seems to be reporting an IO depth of only 1, which would certainly help explain poor performance, but I’m at a loss as to why, I wonder if it could be something specific to RBD behavior, like I need to use a different IO engine to establish queue depth. IO depths : 1=200.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% Any thoughts appreciated!
Interesting results with the io depth at 1. I Haven't seen that behaviour when using libaio, direct=1, and higher io depths. Is this kernel RBD or QEMU/KVM? If it's QEMU/KVM, is it the libvirt driver?
Certainly 300 IOPS is low for that kind of setup compared to what we've seen for RBD on other systems (especially with 1x replication). Given that you are seeing more reasonable performance with RGW, I guess I'd look at a couple things:
- Figure out why fio is reporting queue depth = 1 - Does increasing the num jobs help (ie get concurrency another way)? - Do you have enough PGs in the RBD pool? - Are you using the virtio driver if QEMU/KVM?
Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
