Re: Comparison of 3 replication models on Pech OSD cluster

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

 



On 2020-07-29 01:33, Виталий Филиппов wrote:
Wow, crimson osd has some big problems if its latency is 10ms. OK,
let's just wait until it's fixed.

I really keen to see good crimson results, since I need a good
reference numbers to understand where pech sucks, but each test
I do I fail to get something significant.

Problem is that you don't know which data to resync without
journaling.

Take simple RAID1 as an example. Nothing can be simpler. It does
resync according to the bitmap of dirty blocks (when enabled).
No journaling is involved. Why object data mutations (write
IOs to an object) can't be tracked using old-school bitmap?
Let's avoid any parallel access to the same image, here I
consider only one particular case: VM opens its own image,
i.e. one image per one client, thus no parallel access
(with parallel access everything gets complicated, but IMHO
not unsolvable). So having some restrictions we can track
object data modifications (i.e. plain write IOs) in a bitmap.

AFAIK Linstor/drbd9 does a similar thing, something like
"write intent journaling", to provide fast resyncs, even though they
don't have EC (they have it in beta). So I think the client-based
approach can only be possible without fully ditching atomicity. Maybe
for example it should involve some additional lazy synchronization
among OSDs themselves using pglogs from client-driven writes. Hm..
sounds like it's even not unreal in ceph..:-)

Unfortunately I can say nothing regarding linstor, but having simple
(what is important to me is plain C :) and fast pech osd implementation
of basic logic (transport and monitor client) it is possible to test
and prove/disprove some interesting ideas.

Regarding the latency test, it also depends on network latency, so
local test isn't the same as a clustered one.

True, is not the same, but we compare osds between each other,
not the localhost network and cluster network. Just extrapolate
the difference between osds to any other network setup and
you will be almost certainly correct :)

And frankly, now I do not have any real cluster in my disposal.
So could test only on my local machine.

But thanks anyway. Pech OSD seems fast :-)

To reach current crimson state peering has to be implemented, though
I never had plans to compete with crimson. What especially warms
my heart is compilation time: 4 seconds on 8 cpus :)

--
Roman


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Devel]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux