Blairo, We'll speak in pre-replication numbers, replication for this pool is 3. 23.3 Million Objects / OSD pg_num 2048 16 OSDs / Server 3 Servers 660 GB RAM Total, 179 GB Used (free -t) / Server vm.swappiness = 1 vm.vfs_cache_pressure = 100 Workload is native librados with python. ALL 4k objects. Best Regards, Wade On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wade, good to know. > > For the record, what does this work out to roughly per OSD? And how > much RAM and how many PGs per OSD do you have? > > What's your workload? I wonder whether for certain workloads (e.g. > RBD) it's better to increase default object size somewhat before > pushing the split/merge up a lot... > > Cheers, > > On 23 June 2016 at 11:26, Wade Holler <wade.holler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Based on everyones suggestions; The first modification to 50 / 16 >> enabled our config to get to ~645Mill objects before the behavior in >> question was observed (~330 was the previous ceiling). Subsequent >> modification to 50 / 24 has enabled us to get to 1.1 Billion+ >> >> Thank you all very much for your support and assistance. >> >> Best Regards, >> Wade >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Christian Balzer <chibi@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:47:32 +0000 Warren Wang - ISD wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry, late to the party here. I agree, up the merge and split >>>> thresholds. We're as high as 50/12. I chimed in on an RH ticket here. >>>> One of those things you just have to find out as an operator since it's >>>> not well documented :( >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219974 >>>> >>>> We have over 200 million objects in this cluster, and it's still doing >>>> over 15000 write IOPS all day long with 302 spinning drives + SATA SSD >>>> journals. Having enough memory and dropping your vfs_cache_pressure >>>> should also help. >>>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> Since it was asked in that bug report and also my first suspicion, it >>> would probably be good time to clarify that it isn't the splits that cause >>> the performance degradation, but the resulting inflation of dir entries >>> and exhaustion of SLAB and thus having to go to disk for things that >>> normally would be in memory. >>> >>> Looking at Blair's graph from yesterday pretty much makes that clear, a >>> purely split caused degradation should have relented much quicker. >>> >>> >>>> Keep in mind that if you change the values, it won't take effect >>>> immediately. It only merges them back if the directory is under the >>>> calculated threshold and a write occurs (maybe a read, I forget). >>>> >>> If it's a read a plain scrub might do the trick. >>> >>> Christian >>>> Warren >>>> >>>> >>>> From: ceph-users >>>> <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >>>> on behalf of Wade Holler >>>> <wade.holler@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:wade.holler@xxxxxxxxx>> Date: Monday, June >>>> 20, 2016 at 2:48 PM To: Blair Bethwaite >>>> <blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx>>, Wido den >>>> Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxx<mailto:wido@xxxxxxxx>> Cc: Ceph Development >>>> <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, >>>> "ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" >>>> <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: >>>> Re: Dramatic performance drop at certain number of objects >>>> in pool >>>> >>>> Thanks everyone for your replies. I sincerely appreciate it. We are >>>> testing with different pg_num and filestore_split_multiple settings. >>>> Early indications are .... well not great. Regardless it is nice to >>>> understand the symptoms better so we try to design around it. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Wade >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:32 AM Blair Bethwaite >>>> <blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On >>>> 20 June 2016 at 09:21, Blair Bethwaite >>>> <blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:blair.bethwaite@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>>> > slow request issues). If you watch your xfs stats you'll likely get >>>> > further confirmation. In my experience xs_dir_lookups balloons (which >>>> > means directory lookups are missing cache and going to disk). >>>> >>>> Murphy's a bitch. Today we upgraded a cluster to latest Hammer in >>>> preparation for Jewel/RHCS2. Turns out when we last hit this very >>>> problem we had only ephemerally set the new filestore merge/split >>>> values - oops. Here's what started happening when we upgraded and >>>> restarted a bunch of OSDs: >>>> https://au-east.erc.monash.edu.au/swift/v1/public/grafana-ceph-xs_dir_lookup.png >>>> >>>> Seemed to cause lots of slow requests :-/. We corrected it about >>>> 12:30, then still took a while to settle. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> ~Blairo >>>> >>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >>>> intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. >>>> If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. *** >>>> Walmart Confidential *** >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>> chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications >>> http://www.gol.com/ > > > > -- > Cheers, > ~Blairo _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |