Hello Nick, On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:46:03 -0000 Nick Fisk wrote: > Hi Christian, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > Of Christian Balzer > > Sent: 26 February 2016 09:07 > > To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Cache tier weirdness > > > > > > Hello, > > > > still my test cluster with 0.94.6. > > It's a bit fuzzy, but I don't think I saw this with Firefly, but then > again that is > > totally broken when it comes to cache tiers (switching between > > writeback and forward mode). > > > > goat is a cache pool for rbd: > > --- > > # ceph osd pool ls detail > > pool 2 'rbd' replicated size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 2 object_hash > rjenkins > > pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 last_change 11729 lfor 11662 flags hashpspool > > tiers 9 read_tier 9 write_tier 9 stripe_width 0 > > > > pool 9 'goat' replicated size 1 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 3 object_hash > rjenkins > > pg_num 128 pgp_num 128 last_change 11730 flags > > hashpspool,incomplete_clones tier_of 2 cache_mode writeback > > target_bytes 524288000 hit_set bloom{false_positive_probability: 0.05, > > target_size: 0, seed: 0} 3600s x1 stripe_width 0 > > --- > > > > Initial state is this: > > --- > > # rados df > > pool name KB objects clones degraded > unfound rd > > rd KB wr wr KB > > goat 34 429 0 0 > 0 1051 4182046 145803 > > 10617422 > > rbd 164080702 40747 0 0 > 0 419664 71142697 > > 4430922 531299267 > > total used 599461060 41176 > > total avail 5301740284 > > total space 5940328912 > > --- > > > > First we put some data in there with > > "rados -p rbd bench 20 write -t 32 --no-cleanup" > > which easily exceeds the target bytes of 512MB and gives us: > > --- > > pool name KB objects > > goat 356386 372 > > --- > > > > For starters, that's not the number I would have expected given how > > this configured: > > cache_target_dirty_ratio: 0.5 > > cache_target_full_ratio: 0.9 > > > > Lets ignore (but not forget) that discrepancy for now. > > One of the things I have noticed is that whilst the target_max_bytes is > set per pool, its actually acted on per PG. So each PG will flush/evict > based on its share of the pool capacity. Depending on where data > resides, PG's will normally have differing amount of data stored which > leads to inconsistent cache pool flush/eviction limits. I believe there > is also a "slop" factor in the cache code so that the caching agents are > not always working on hard limits. I think with artificially small cache > sizes, both of these cause adverse effects. > Interesting, that goes a long way to explain this mismatch. It is probably a spawn of the same logic that warns about too many or little PGs per OSD in Hammer by averaging the numbers, totally ignoring the actual usage per OSD. My test cluster has 4 OSDs in the cache pool, the production one will have 8 (and 2TB of raw data), and while not exactly artificially small I foresee lots of parameter fondling. > > > > After doing a read with "rados -p rbd bench 20 rand -t 32" to my utter > > bafflement I get: > > --- > > pool name KB objects > > goat 8226 199 > > --- > > > > And after a second read it's all gone, looking at the network traffic > > it > all > > originated from the base pool nodes and got relayed through the node > > hosting the cache pool: > > --- > > pool name KB objects > > goat 34 191 > > --- > > > > I verified that the actual objects are on the base pool with 4MB each, > while > > their "copies" are on the cache pool OSDs with zero length. > > > > Can anybody unbaffle me? ^o^ > > Afraid not, but I will try my best. In Hammer, you still don't have proxy > writes, so that's why the write test fills up your cache tier. Proxy > reads will mean that if the object is not in cache it will be retrieved > from the base tier and only promoted if it gets sequential hits across > the hitsets defined by min_recency. > Note that per the ls detail output, no recency is set, thus it SHOULD not play any role here. > I believe that the hitsets are stored as hidden objects in the pool. > Hitsets also only get created when you do IO, the agent just sleeps > otherwise. I'm wondering if the hitset creation is causing the cached > bench_data objects to be evicted? Ie the eviction code is assuming a > hitset object is bigger than it actually is? > You're talking about hitset object sizes, and in the ls detail output we have a "target_size: 0", alas I have not the faintest inkling what this pertains to, nor does there seem to be way to configure it. Regards, Christian > > > > Christian > > -- > > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > > chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications > > http://www.gol.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |