Re: CephFS+NFS For VMWare

[Maged Mokhtar <mmokhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

With iSCSI we reach over 150 MB/s vmotion for single vm, 1 GB/s for 7-8 vm migrations. Since these are 64KB block sizes, latency/iops is a large factor, you need either controllers with write back cache or all flash . hdds without write cache will suffer even with external wal/db on ssds, giving around 80 MB/s vmotion migration. Potentially it may be possible to get higher vmotion speeds by using fancy striping but i would not recommend this unless your total queue depths in all your vms is small compared to the number of osds.

Regarding thin provisioning, a vmdk provisioned as lazy zeroed does have an "initial" large impact on random write performance, could be up to 10x slower. If you are writing a random 64KB to an un-allocated vmfs block, vmfs will first write 1MB to fill the block with zeros then write the 64KB client data, so although a lot of data is being written the perceived client bandwidth is very low. The performance will gradually get better with time until the disk is fully provisioned. It is also possible to thick eager zero the vmdk disk at creation time. Again this is more apparent with random writes rather than sequential or vmotion load.

Maged

On 2018-06-29 18:48, Nick Fisk wrote:

This is for us peeps using Ceph with VMWare.

 

My current favoured solution for consuming Ceph in VMWare is via RBD’s formatted with XFS and exported via NFS to ESXi. This seems to perform better than iSCSI+VMFS which seems to not play nicely with Ceph’s PG contention issues particularly if working with thin provisioned VMDK’s.

 

I’ve still been noticing some performance issues however, mainly noticeable when doing any form of storage migrations. This is largely due to the way vSphere transfers VM’s in 64KB IO’s at a QD of 32. vSphere does this so Arrays with QOS can balance the IO easier than if larger IO’s were submitted. However Ceph’s PG locking means that only one or two of these IO’s can happen at a time, seriously lowering throughput. Typically you won’t be able to push more than 20-25MB/s during a storage migration

 

There is also another issue in that the IO needed for the XFS journal on the RBD, can cause contention and effectively also means every NFS write IO sends 2 down to Ceph. This can have an impact on latency as well. Due to possible PG contention caused by the XFS journal updates when multiple IO’s are in flight, you normally end up making more and more RBD’s to try and spread the load. This normally means you end up having to do storage migrations…..you can see where I’m getting at here.

 

I’ve been thinking for a while that CephFS works around a lot of these limitations.

 

1.       It supports fancy striping, so should mean there is less per object contention

2.       There is no FS in the middle to maintain a journal and other associated IO

3.       A single large NFS mount should have none of the disadvantages seen with a single RBD

4.       No need to migrate VM’s about because of #3

5.       No need to fstrim after deleting VM’s

6.       Potential to do away with pacemaker and use LVS to do active/active NFS as ESXi does its own locking with files

 

With this in mind I exported a CephFS mount via NFS and then mounted it to an ESXi host as a test.

 

Initial results are looking very good. I’m seeing storage migrations to the NFS mount going at over 200MB/s, which equates to several thousand IO’s and seems to be writing at the intended QD32.

 

I need to do more testing to make sure everything works as intended, but like I say, promising initial results.

 

Further testing needs to be done to see what sort of MDS performance is required, I would imagine that since we are mainly dealing with large files, it might not be that critical. I also need to consider the stability of CephFS, RBD is relatively simple and is in use by a large proportion of the Ceph community. CephFS is a lot easier to “upset”.

 

Nick

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com