Re: kernel cephfs - slow requests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christian Balzer пишет:

>> New problem (unsure, but probably not observed in Hammer, but sure in
>> Infernalis): copying large (tens g) files into kernel cephfs (from
>> outside of cluster, iron - non-VM, preempt kernel) - make slow requests
>> on some of OSDs (repeated range) - mostly 3 Gbps channels (slow).
>>
>> All OSDs default threads numbers. Scheduler=noop. size=3 min_size=2
>>
>> No same problem with fuse.
>>
>> Looks like broken or unbalanced congestion mechanism or I don't know how
>> to moderate it. write_congestion_kb trying low (=1) - nothing
>> interesting.
>>
> I think cause and effect are not quite what you think they are.
> 
> Firstly let me state that I have no experience with CephFS at all, but
> what you're seeing isn't likely related to it all.
> 
> Next lets establish some parameters.
> You're testing kernel and fuse from the same machine, right?
> What is the write speed (throughput) when doing this with fuse compared to
> the speed when doing this via the kernel module?

Now I add 2 and out 2 OSDs to 1 of 3 node (2T->4T), cluster under hardwork, so
no benchmarks now. But I good understand this point. And after message I got
slow request on fuse too.

> What is the top speed of your cluster when doing a 
> "rados -p <yourpoolname> bench 60 write -t 32" from your test machine?
> Does this result in slow requests as well?

Hmm... may be later. Now I have no rados pools, only RBD, DATA & METADATA.

> What I think is happening is that you're simply at the limits of your
> current cluster and that fuse is slower, thus not exposing this.
> The kernel module is likely fast AND also will use pagecache, thus creating
> very large writes (how much memory does your test machine have) when it
> gets flushed.

I bound all read/write values in kernel client more then fuse.

Mostly I understand - problem are fast write & slow HDDs. But IMHO some
mechanisms must prevent it (congestion-like). And early I don't observe this
problem on similar configs.

Later, if I will have more info, I say more. May be PREEMPT kernel is "wrong"
there...

-- 
WBR, Dzianis Kahanovich AKA Denis Kaganovich, http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by/
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux