Hi Zakhar, Out of curiosity, what does your crushmap look like? Probably a long shot but are you sure your crush map is targeting the NVME's for the rados bench you are performing? Tor Martin Ølberg On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:31 PM Christian Wuerdig < christian.wuerdig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Maybe some info is missing but 7k write IOPs at 4k block size seem fairly > decent (as you also state) - the bandwidth automatically follows from that > so not sure what you're expecting? > I am a bit puzzled though - by my math 7k IOPS at 4k should only be > 27MiB/sec - not sure how the 120MiB/sec was achieved > The read benchmark seems in line with 13k IOPS at 4k making around > 52MiB/sec bandwidth which again is expected. > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 04:08, Zakhar Kirpichenko <zakhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I built a CEPH 16.2.x cluster with relatively fast and modern hardware, > and > > its performance is kind of disappointing. I would very much appreciate an > > advice and/or pointers :-) > > > > The hardware is 3 x Supermicro SSG-6029P nodes, each equipped with: > > > > 2 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5220R CPUs > > 384 GB RAM > > 2 x boot drives > > 2 x 1.6 TB Micron 7300 MTFDHBE1T6TDG drives (DB/WAL) > > 2 x 6.4 TB Micron 7300 MTFDHBE6T4TDG drives (storage tier) > > 9 x Toshiba MG06SCA10TE 9TB HDDs, write cache off (storage tier) > > 2 x Intel XL710 NICs connected to a pair of 40/100GE switches > > > > All 3 nodes are running Ubuntu 20.04 LTS with the latest 5.4 kernel, > > apparmor is disabled, energy-saving features are disabled. The network > > between the CEPH nodes is 40G, CEPH access network is 40G, the average > > latencies are < 0.15 ms. I've personally tested the network for > throughput, > > latency and loss, and can tell that it's operating as expected and > doesn't > > exhibit any issues at idle or under load. > > > > The CEPH cluster is set up with 2 storage classes, NVME and HDD, with 2 > > smaller NVME drives in each node used as DB/WAL and each HDD allocated . > > ceph osd tree output: > > > > ID CLASS WEIGHT TYPE NAME STATUS REWEIGHT PRI-AFF > > -1 288.37488 root default > > -13 288.37488 datacenter ste > > -14 288.37488 rack rack01 > > -7 96.12495 host ceph01 > > 0 hdd 9.38680 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 1 hdd 9.38680 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 2 hdd 9.38680 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 3 hdd 9.38680 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 4 hdd 9.38680 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 5 hdd 9.38680 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 6 hdd 9.38680 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 7 hdd 9.38680 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 8 hdd 9.38680 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 9 nvme 5.82190 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 10 nvme 5.82190 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -10 96.12495 host ceph02 > > 11 hdd 9.38680 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 12 hdd 9.38680 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 13 hdd 9.38680 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 14 hdd 9.38680 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 15 hdd 9.38680 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 16 hdd 9.38680 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 17 hdd 9.38680 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 18 hdd 9.38680 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 19 hdd 9.38680 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 20 nvme 5.82190 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 21 nvme 5.82190 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > -3 96.12495 host ceph03 > > 22 hdd 9.38680 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 23 hdd 9.38680 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 24 hdd 9.38680 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 25 hdd 9.38680 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 26 hdd 9.38680 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 27 hdd 9.38680 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 28 hdd 9.38680 osd.28 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 29 hdd 9.38680 osd.29 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 30 hdd 9.38680 osd.30 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 31 nvme 5.82190 osd.31 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > 32 nvme 5.82190 osd.32 up 1.00000 1.00000 > > > > ceph df: > > > > --- RAW STORAGE --- > > CLASS SIZE AVAIL USED RAW USED %RAW USED > > hdd 253 TiB 241 TiB 13 TiB 13 TiB 5.00 > > nvme 35 TiB 35 TiB 82 GiB 82 GiB 0.23 > > TOTAL 288 TiB 276 TiB 13 TiB 13 TiB 4.42 > > > > --- POOLS --- > > POOL ID PGS STORED OBJECTS USED %USED MAX > AVAIL > > images 12 256 24 GiB 3.15k 73 GiB 0.03 76 > TiB > > volumes 13 256 839 GiB 232.16k 2.5 TiB 1.07 76 > TiB > > backups 14 256 31 GiB 8.56k 94 GiB 0.04 76 > TiB > > vms 15 256 752 GiB 198.80k 2.2 TiB 0.96 76 > TiB > > device_health_metrics 16 32 35 MiB 39 106 MiB 0 76 > TiB > > volumes-nvme 17 256 28 GiB 7.21k 81 GiB 0.24 11 > TiB > > ec-volumes-meta 18 256 27 KiB 4 92 KiB 0 76 > TiB > > ec-volumes-data 19 256 8 KiB 1 12 KiB 0 152 > TiB > > > > Please disregard the ec-pools, as they're not currently in use. All other > > pools are configured with min_size=2, size=3. All pools are bound to HDD > > storage except for 'volumes-nvme', which is bound to NVME. The number of > > PGs was increased recently, as with autoscaler I was getting a very > uneven > > PG distribution on devices and we're expecting to add 3 more nodes of > > exactly the same configuration in the coming weeks. I have to emphasize > > that I tested different PG numbers and they didn't have a noticeable > impact > > on the cluster performance. > > > > The main issue is that this beautiful cluster isn't very fast. When I > test > > against the 'volumes' pool, residing on HDD storage class (HDDs with > DB/WAL > > on NVME), I get unexpectedly low throughput numbers: > > > > > rados -p volumes bench 30 write --no-cleanup > > ... > > Total time run: 30.3078 > > Total writes made: 3731 > > Write size: 4194304 > > Object size: 4194304 > > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 492.415 > > Stddev Bandwidth: 161.777 > > Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 820 > > Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 204 > > Average IOPS: 123 > > Stddev IOPS: 40.4442 > > Max IOPS: 205 > > Min IOPS: 51 > > Average Latency(s): 0.129115 > > Stddev Latency(s): 0.143881 > > Max latency(s): 1.35669 > > Min latency(s): 0.0228179 > > > > > rados -p volumes bench 30 seq --no-cleanup > > ... > > Total time run: 14.7272 > > Total reads made: 3731 > > Read size: 4194304 > > Object size: 4194304 > > Bandwidth (MB/sec): 1013.36 > > Average IOPS: 253 > > Stddev IOPS: 63.8709 > > Max IOPS: 323 > > Min IOPS: 91 > > Average Latency(s): 0.0625202 > > Max latency(s): 0.551629 > > Min latency(s): 0.010683 > > > > On average, I get around 550 MB/s writes and 800 MB/s reads with 16 > threads > > and 4MB blocks. The numbers don't look fantastic for this hardware, I can > > actually push over 8 GB/s of throughput with fio, 16 threads and 4MB > blocks > > from an RBD client (KVM Linux VM) connected over a low-latency 40G > network, > > probably hitting some OSD caches there: > > > > READ: bw=8525MiB/s (8939MB/s), 58.8MiB/s-1009MiB/s > (61.7MB/s-1058MB/s), > > io=501GiB (538GB), run=60001-60153msec > > Disk stats (read/write): > > vdc: ios=48163/0, merge=6027/0, ticks=1400509/0, in_queue=1305092, > > util=99.48% > > > > The issue manifests when the same client does something closer to > real-life > > usage, like a single-thread write or read with 4KB blocks, as if using > for > > example ext4 file system: > > > > > fio --name=ttt --ioengine=posixaio --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 > > --size=4g --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --end_fsync=1 > > ... > > Run status group 0 (all jobs): > > WRITE: bw=120MiB/s (126MB/s), 120MiB/s-120MiB/s (126MB/s-126MB/s), > > io=7694MiB (8067MB), run=64079-64079msec > > Disk stats (read/write): > > vdc: ios=0/6985, merge=0/406, ticks=0/3062535, in_queue=3048216, > > util=77.31% > > > > > fio --name=ttt --ioengine=posixaio --rw=read --bs=4k --numjobs=1 > > --size=4g --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --end_fsync=1 > > ... > > Run status group 0 (all jobs): > > READ: bw=54.0MiB/s (56.7MB/s), 54.0MiB/s-54.0MiB/s > (56.7MB/s-56.7MB/s), > > io=3242MiB (3399MB), run=60001-60001msec > > Disk stats (read/write): > > vdc: ios=12952/3, merge=0/1, ticks=81706/1, in_queue=56336, util=99.13% > > > > And this is a total disaster: the IOPS look decent, but the bandwidth is > > unexpectedly very very low. I just don't understand why a single RBD > client > > writes at 120 MB/s (sometimes slower), and 50 MB/s reads look like a bad > > joke ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > When I run these benchmarks, nothing seems to be overloaded, things like > > CPU and network are barely utilized, OSD latencies don't show anything > > unusual. Thus I am puzzled with these results, as in my opinion SAS HDDs > > with DB/WAL on NVME drives should produce better I/O bandwidth, both for > > writes and reads. I mean, I can easily get much better performance from a > > single HDD shared over network via NFS or iSCSI. > > > > I am open to suggestions and would very much appreciate comments and/or > an > > advice on how to improve the cluster performance. > > > > Best regards, > > Zakhar > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
 |