On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:33:05 +1000 Blair Bethwaite 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... > I'd posit that that RBD is _least_ likely to encounter this issue in a moderately balanced setup. Think about it, a 4MB RBD object can hold literally hundreds of files. While with CephFS or RGW, a file or S3 object is going to cost you about 2 RADOS objects each. Case in point, my main cluster (RBD images only) with 18 5+TB OSDs on 3 servers (64GB RAM each) has 1.8 million 4MB RBD objects using about 7% of the available space. Don't think I could hit this problem before running out of space. Christian > 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/ > > > -- 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
 |