On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:46:16 +0100 (CET) Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: [snip] > >>and it looks disable cephx auth is no good for production use.... cephx affect lot of performance? > > for me, I still have 10-20% difference with cephx. > If you only use your ceph cluster for your qemu cluster, I don't see any problem to disable it. > (and of course your ceph cluster is firewalled / or network access is only available for your qemu client). > Yup, most people with production cluster will have a setup like that. > Note that changing it only is not possible. so you need to shutdown all the clients before doing this change. > And this is why I'll never be able to disable it on any production cluster, only new ones will get that benefit. ^o^ Christian > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Bill WONG" <wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx> > À: "aderumier" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "dillaman" <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Envoyé: Lundi 7 Novembre 2016 06:35:38 > Objet: Re: RBD Block performance vs rbd mount as filesystem > > HI Alexandre, > thank you! > any document can provided for how i can complied ceph with jemalloc as well? as it looks if ceph with jemalloc is much better performance too. > and what's the side effect if debug ms=0/0 and it looks disable cephx auth is no good for production use.... cephx affect lot of performance? > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER < [ mailto:aderumier@xxxxxxxxx | aderumier@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote: > > > here some tips I use to improve librbd performance && qemu: > > - disabling cephx auth > > - disable debug_ms : (I'm jumping from 30k iops to 45k iops, with 4k randread) > > [global] > > debug ms = 0/0 > > > - compile qemu with jemalloc (--enable-jemalloc) > [ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html | https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg05265.html ] > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jason Dillaman" < [ mailto:jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx | jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx ] > > À: "Bill WONG" < [ mailto:wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx | wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx ] > > Cc: "aderumier" < [ mailto:aderumier@xxxxxxxxx | aderumier@xxxxxxxxx ] >, "ceph-users" < [ mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] > > Envoyé: Mardi 1 Novembre 2016 02:06:22 > Objet: Re: RBD Block performance vs rbd mount as filesystem > > For better or worse, I can repeat your "ioping" findings against a > qcow2 image hosted on a krbd-backed volume. The "bad" news is that it > actually isn't even sending any data to the OSDs -- which is why your > latency is shockingly low. When performing a "dd ... oflag=dsync" > against the krbd-backed qcow2 image, I can see lots of IO being > coalesced from 4K writes into larger writes, which is artificially > inflating the stats. > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Bill WONG < [ mailto:wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx | wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > it looks the situation is the same, no difference. my ceph.conf is below, > > any comments or improvement required? > > --- > > [global] > > fsid = 106a12b0-5ed0-4a71-b6aa-68a09088ec33 > > mon_initial_members = ceph-mon1, ceph-mon2, ceph-mon3 > > mon_host = 192.168.8.11,192.168.8.12,192.168.8.13 > > auth_cluster_required = cephx > > auth_service_required = cephx > > auth_client_required = cephx > > filestore_xattr_use_omap = true > > osd pool default size = 3 > > osd pool default min size = 1 > > osd pool default pg num = 4096 > > osd pool default pgp num = 4096 > > osd_crush_chooseleaf_type = 1 > > mon_pg_warn_max_per_osd = 0 > > max_open_files = 131072 > > > > [mon] > > mon_data = /var/lib/ceph/mon/ceph-$id > > > > mon clock drift allowed = 2 > > mon clock drift warn backoff = 30 > > > > [osd] > > osd_data = /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-$id > > osd_journal_size = 20000 > > osd_mkfs_type = xfs > > osd_mkfs_options_xfs = -f > > filestore_xattr_use_omap = true > > filestore_min_sync_interval = 10 > > filestore_max_sync_interval = 15 > > filestore_queue_max_ops = 25000 > > filestore_queue_max_bytes = 10485760 > > filestore_queue_committing_max_ops = 5000 > > filestore_queue_committing_max_bytes = 10485760000 > > journal_max_write_bytes = 1073714824 > > journal_max_write_entries = 10000 > > journal_queue_max_ops = 50000 > > journal_queue_max_bytes = 10485760000 > > osd_max_write_size = 512 > > osd_client_message_size_cap = 2147483648 > > osd_deep_scrub_stride = 131072 > > osd_op_threads = 8 > > osd_disk_threads = 4 > > osd_map_cache_size = 1024 > > osd_map_cache_bl_size = 128 > > osd_mount_options_xfs = "rw,noexec,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,nobarrier" > > osd_recovery_op_priority = 4 > > osd_recovery_max_active = 10 > > osd_max_backfills = 4 > > rbd non blocking aio = false > > > > [client] > > rbd_cache = true > > rbd_cache_size = 268435456 > > rbd_cache_max_dirty = 134217728 > > rbd_cache_max_dirty_age = 5 > > --- > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jason Dillaman < [ mailto:jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx | jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx ] > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Bill WONG < [ mailto:wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx | wongahshuen@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote: > >> > any ideas or comments? > >> > >> Can you set "rbd non blocking aio = false" in your ceph.conf and retry > >> librbd? This will eliminate at least one context switch on the read IO > >> path -- which result in increased latency under extremely low queue > >> depths. > >> > >> -- > >> Jason > > > > > > > -- 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
 |