Re: which of cpu frequency and number of threads servers osd better?

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

 



You all mentioned first 2T and another 2T. Could you give more
details how OSD works with multi-thread, or share the link if
it's already documented somewhere?

Is it always 4T, or start with 1T and grow up to 4T? Is it max 4T?
Does each T run different job or just multiple instances of the
same job? Does disk type affect how T works, like 1T is good enough
for HDD while 4T is required for SSD?

If I change my plan to 2 SSD OSDs and 8 HDD OSDs (with 1 SSD for
WAL and DB). If each OSD requires 4T, then 16C/32T 3.0GHz could
be a better choice, because it provides sufficient Ts?
If SSD OSD requires 4T and HDD OSD only requires 1T, then 8C/16T
3.2GHz would be better, because it provides sufficient Ts as well
as stronger computing? 

Thanks!
Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Schilder <frans@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:59 PM
> To: Tony Liu <tonyliu0592@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Nathan Fish <lordcirth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Re: which of cpu frequency and number of
> threads servers osd better?
> 
> I think this depends on the type of backing disk. We use the following
> CPUs:
> 
> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v4 @ 2.00GHz
> Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU @ 2.30GHz
> Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4216 CPU @ 2.10GHz
> 
> My experience is, that a HDD OSD hardly gets to 100% of 1 hyper thread
> load even under heavy recovery/rebalance operations on 8+2 and 6+2 EC
> pools with compression set to aggressive. The CPU is mostly doing wait-
> IO, that is, the disk is the real bottle neck, not the processor power.
> With SSDs I have seen 2HT at 100% and 2 more at 50% each. I guess NVMe
> might be more demanding.
> 
> A server with 12 HDD and 1 SSD should be fine with a modern CPU with 8
> cores. 16 threads sounds like an 8 core CPU. The 2nd generation Intel®
> Xeon® Silver 4209T with 8 cores should easily handle that (single socket
> system). We have the 16-core Intel silver in a dual socket system
> currently connected to 5HDD and 7SSD and I did a rebalance operation
> yesterday. The CPU user load did not exceed 2%, it can handle OSD
> processes easily. The server is dimensioned to run up to 12HDD and 14SSD
> OSDs (Dell R740xd2). As far as I can tell, the CPU configuration is
> overpowered for that.
> 
> Just for info, we use ganglia to record node utilisation. I use 1-year
> records and pick peak loads I observed for dimensioning the CPUs. These
> records include some very heavy recovery periods.
> 
> Best regards,
> =================
> Frank Schilder
> AIT Risø Campus
> Bygning 109, rum S14
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Tony Liu <tonyliu0592@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 13 November 2020 04:57:53
> To: Nathan Fish
> Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> Subject:  Re: which of cpu frequency and number of threads
> servers osd better?
> 
> Thanks Nathan!
> Tony
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nathan Fish <lordcirth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:43 PM
> > To: Tony Liu <tonyliu0592@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re:  which of cpu frequency and number of threads
> > servers osd better?
> >
> > From what I've seen, OSD daemons tend to bottleneck on the first 2
> > threads, while getting some use out of another 2. So 32 threads at 3.0
> > would be a lot better. Note that you may get better performance
> > splitting off some of that SSD for block.db partitions or at least
> > block.wal for the HDDs.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:57 PM Tony Liu <tonyliu0592@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > For example, 16 threads with 3.2GHz and 32 threads with 3.0GHz,
> > > which makes 11 OSDs (10x12TB HDD and 1x960GB SSD) with better
> performance?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Tony
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an
> > > email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an
> email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx




[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