Re: Infernalis -> Jewel, 10x+ RBD latency increase

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

 



You aren't, by chance, sharing the same RBD image between multiple
VMs, are you? An order-of-magnitude performance degradation would not
be unexpected if you have multiple clients concurrently accessing the
same image with the "exclusive-lock" feature enabled on the image.

4000 IOPS for 4K random writes also sounds suspiciously high to me.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Martin Millnert <martin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just upgraded from Infernalis to Jewel and see an approximate 10x
> latency increase.
>
> Quick facts:
>  - 3x replicated pool
>  - 4x 2x-"E5-2690 v3 @ 2.60GHz", 128GB RAM, 6x 1.6 TB Intel S3610 SSDs,
>  - LSI3008 controller with up-to-date firmware and upstream driver, and
> up-to-date firmware on SSDs.
>  - 40GbE (Mellanox, with up-to-date drivers & firmware)
>  - CentOS 7.2
>
> Physical checks out, both iperf3 for network and e.g. fio over all the
> SSDs. Not done much of Linux tuning yet; but irqbalanced does a pretty
> good job with pairing both NIC and HBA with their respective CPUs.
>
> In performance hunting mode, and today took the next logical step of
> upgrading from Infernalis to Jewel.
>
> Tester is remote KVM/Qemu/libvirt guest (openstack) CentOS 7 image with
> fio. The test scenario is 4K randomwrite, libaio, directIO, QD=1,
> runtime=900s, test-file-size=40GiB.
>
> Went from a picture of [1] to [2]. In [1], the guest saw 98.25% of the
> I/O complete within maximum 250 µsec (~4000 IOPS). This, [2], sees
> 98.95% of the IO at ~4 msec (actually ~300 IOPs).
>
> Between [1] and [2] (simple plots of FIO's E2E-latency metrics), the
> entire cluster including compute nodes code went from Infernalis to
> 10.2.2
>
> What's going on here?
>
> I haven't tuned Ceph OSDs either in config or via Linux kernel at all
> yet; upgrade to Jewel came first. I haven't changed any OSD configs
> between [1] and [2] myself (only minimally before [1], 0 effort on
> performance tuning) , other than updated to Jewel tunables. But the
> difference is very drastic, wouldn't you say?
>
> Best,
> Martin
> [1] http://martin.millnert.se/ceph/pngs/guest-ceph-fio-bench/test08/ceph-fio-bench_lat.1.png
> [2] http://martin.millnert.se/ceph/pngs/guest-ceph-fio-bench/test10/ceph-fio-bench_lat.1.png
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



-- 
Jason
_______________________________________________
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