On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Manoj,
I always enable client-io-threads option for disperse volumes. It improves performance sensibly, most probably because of the problem you have detected.
I don't see any other way to solve that problem.I agree. Updated the bug with same info.
I think it would be a lot better to have a true thread pool (and maybe an I/O thread pool shared by fuse, client and server xlators) in libglusterfs instead of the io-threads xlator. This would allow each xlator to decide when and what should be parallelized in a more intelligent way, since basing the decision solely on the fop type seems too simplistic to me.
In the specific case of EC, there are a lot of operations to perform for a single high level fop, and not all of them require the same priority. Also some of them could be executed in parallel instead of sequentially.I think it is high time we actually schedule(for which release) to get this in gluster. May be you should send out a doc where we can work out details? I will be happy to explore options to integrate io-threads, syncop/barrier with this infra based on the design may be.
I was just thinking why we can't reuse synctask framework. It already scales up/down based on the tasks. At max it uses 16 threads. Whatever we want to be executed in parallel we can create a synctask around it and run it. Would that be good enough?
Xavi
On 25/06/16 19:42, Manoj Pillai wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Xavier Hernandez" <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Manoj Pillai" <mpillai@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:50:44 PM
Subject: performance issues Manoj found in EC testing
hi Xavi,
Meet Manoj from performance team Redhat. He has been testing EC
performance in his stretch clusters. He found some interesting things we
would like to share with you.
1) When we perform multiple streams of big file writes(12 parallel dds I
think) he found one thread to be always hot (99%CPU always). He was asking
me if fuse_reader thread does any extra processing in EC compared to
replicate. Initially I thought it would just lock and epoll threads will
perform the encoding but later realized that once we have the lock and
version details, next writes on the file would be encoded in the same
thread that comes to EC. write-behind could play a role and make the writes
come to EC in an epoll thread but we saw consistently there was just one
thread that is hot. Not multiple threads. We will be able to confirm this
in tomorrow's testing.
2) This is one more thing Raghavendra G found, that our current
implementation of epoll doesn't let other epoll threads pick messages from
a socket while one thread is processing one message from that socket. In
EC's case that can be encoding of the write/decoding read. This will not
let replies of operations on different files to be processed in parallel.
He thinks this can be fixed for 3.9.
Manoj will be raising a bug to gather all his findings. I just wanted to
introduce him and let you know the interesting things he is finding before
you see the bug :-).
--
Pranith
Thanks, Pranith :).
Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349953
Comparing EC and replica-2 runs, the hot thread is seen in both cases, so
I have not opened this as an EC bug. But initial impression is that
performance impact for EC is particularly bad (details in the bug).
-- Manoj
--Pranith
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
