I've confirmed my earlier results using 2.6.37.5 on the server, though now the results are closer to 10 times worse than the Netapp on similar hardware rather than 100 times worse. A big improvement, but I'd still be interested to know if the server is capable of the getattr/readdirplus/lookup versus read/write tradeoffs that I'm looking for to bring "ls -l" speeds under load down to levels that won't make my users yell at me. Is this the wrong place to ask the question? Is there more knowledge of Linux NFS server internals on a different mailing list that I should contact? Thanks once more. Andrew --- On Mon, 4/4/11, Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Packet sniffing is exactly what I did (to the limit of my > current abilities, anyway); it's what led to my > questions. If you read further down, you'll see the > packet sniffer results I got that led me to ask about having > the server nfsd processes prioritize > getattr/readdirplus/lookup queries. > > In brief: Under the same load, on similar hardware, with a > similar number of disks, our NetApp pumps back > getattr/readdirplus/lookup replies at a rate of thousands > per second, compared to the tens per second (or less, plus > periodic long delays) averaged by our Linux server under > that load. > > The Linux filesystem and VM system don't seem to be the > problem, because the same load locally doesn't cause the "ls > -l" problem, and the NFS load doesn't cause the problem for > local "ls -l" runs. > > I guess I could start trying to trace nfsd processes to > find the contention, but I really don't feel qualified for > that; I was hoping someone familiar with the code could say, > "Sure, that's an easy fix," or, "Not gonna happen, because > everything would have to be re-written to get the kernel to > prioritize nfsd threads based on what they're doing." > > I can gladly provide more details about my test setup > and/or packet traces. > > Thanks. > > Andrew > > > --- On Mon, 4/4/11, Steven Procter <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > I'd recommend using a packet sniffer to see what is > going on at the > > protocol level when there are performance issues. > I've found that > > wireshark works well for this kind of investigation. > > > > --Steven > > > > > X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/12.0.2 > > YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617 > > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 06:31:09 -0700 > > (PDT) > > > From: Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup > > > To: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Sender: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > How difficult would it be to make nfsd give > priority > > to the calls generated by "ls -l" (i.e. readdirplus, > > getattr, lookup) over read and write calls? Is it a > matter > > of tweaking a couple of sysctls or changing a few > lines of > > code, or would it mean a major re-write? > > > > > > I'm working in an environment where it's > important to > > have reasonably good throughput for the HPC farm > (50-200 > > machines reading and writing 5-10MB files as fast as > they > > can pump them through), while simultaneously > providing > > snappy responses to "ls -l" and equivalents for > people > > reviewing file sizes and times and browsing through > the > > filesystem and constructing new jobs and whatnot. > > > > > > I've tried a small handful of server OSes > (Solaris, > > Exastore, various Linux flavours and tunings and nfsd > > counts) that do great on the throughput side but > horrible on > > the "ls -l" under load side (as mentioned in my > previous > > emails). > > > > > > However, I know what I need is possible, because > > Netapp GX on very similar hardware (similar > processor, > > memory, and spindle count), does slightly worse (20% > or so) > > on total throughput but much better (10-100 times > better > > than Solaris/Linux/Exastore) on under-load "ls -l" > > responsiveness. > > > > > > In the Linux case, I think I've narrowed to the > > problem down to nfsd rather than filesystem or VM > system. > > It's not filesystem or VM system, because when the > server is > > under heavy local load equivalent to my HPC farm load, > both > > local and remote "ls -l" commands are fast. It's not > that > > the NFS load overwhelms the server, because when the > server > > is under heavy HPC farm load, local "ls -l" commands > are > > still fast. > > > > > > It's only when there's an NFS load and an NFS "ls > -l" > > that the "ls -l" is slow. Like so: > > > > > > > > > throughput ls -l > > > > > > ========== ===== > > > Heavy local load, local ls -l fast > > > fast > > > Heavy local load, NFS ls -l fast > > > fast > > > Heavy NFS load, local ls -l fast > > > fast > > > Heavy NFS load, NFS ls -l fast > > > very slow > > > > > > This suggests to me that it's nfsd that's slowing > down > > the ls -l response times rather than the filesystem or > VM > > system. > > > > > > Would fixing the bottom-right-corner case - even > if it > > meant a modest throughput slowdown - be an easy > > tweak/patch? Or major re-write? (Or just a kernel > > upgrade?) > > > > > > I know it's doable because the Netapp does it; > the > > question is how large a job would it be on Linux. > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > > FWIW, here's what I've tried so far to try to > make > > this problem go away without success: > > > > > > Server side: > > > > > > kernels (all x86_64): 2.6.32-[something] on > Scientific > > Linux 6.0, 2.6.32.4 on Slackware, 2.6.37.5 on > Slackware > > > filesystems: xfs, ext4 > > > nfsd counts: 8,32,64,127,128,256,1024 > > > schedulers: cfq,deadline > > > export options: async,no_root_squash > > > > > > Client side: > > > kernel: 2.6.31.14-0.6-desktop, x86_64, from > openSUSE > > 11.3 > > > hard,intr,noatime,vers=3,mountvers=3 # always on > > > rsize,wsize: 32768,65536 > > > proto: tcp,udp > > > nolock # on or off > > > noac # on or off > > > actimeo: 3,5,60,240,600 # I had really > hoped > > this would help > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Setting actimeo=600 gave me part of > > > > the behaviour I expected; on the first > directory > > listing, > > > > the calls were all readdirplus and no > getattr. > > > > > > > > However, there were now long stretches > where > > nothing was > > > > happening. During a single directory > listing to > > a > > > > loaded server, there'd be: > > > > > > > > ~10 seconds of readdirplus calls and > replies, > > followed by > > > > ~70 seconds of nothing, followed by > > > > ~10 seconds of readdirplus calls and > replies, > > followed by > > > > ~100 seconds of nothing, followed by > > > > ~10 seconds of readdirplus calls and > replies, > > followed by > > > > ~110 seconds of nothing, followed by > > > > ~2 seconds of readdirplus calls and > replies > > > > > > > > Why the long stretches of nothing? If I'm > > reading my > > > > tshark output properly, it doesn't seem like > the > > client was > > > > waiting for a server response. Here are a > > couple of > > > > lines before and after a long stretch of > > nothing: > > > > > > > > 28.575537 192.168.10.158 -> > 192.168.10.5 NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Call, FH:0xa216e302 > > > > 28.593943 192.168.10.5 -> > 192.168.10.158 NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Reply (Call In 358) > random_1168.exr > > > > random_2159.exr random_2188 > > > > .exr random_0969.exr random_1662.exr > > random_0022.exr > > > > random_0785.exr random_2316.exr > random_0831.exr > > > > random_0443.exr random_ > > > > 1203.exr random_1907.exr > > > > 28.594006 192.168.10.158 -> > 192.168.10.5 NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Call, FH:0xa216e302 > > > > 28.623736 192.168.10.5 -> > 192.168.10.158 NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Reply (Call In 362) > random_1575.exr > > > > random_0492.exr random_0335 > > > > .exr random_2460.exr random_0754.exr > > random_1114.exr > > > > random_2001.exr random_2298.exr > random_1858.exr > > > > random_1889.exr random_ > > > > 2249.exr random_0782.exr > > > > 103.811801 192.168.10.158 -> 192.168.10.5 > NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Call, FH:0xa216e302 > > > > 103.883930 192.168.10.5 -> 192.168.10.158 > NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Reply (Call In 2311) > random_0025.exr > > > > random_1665.exr random_231 > > > > 1.exr random_1204.exr random_0444.exr > > random_0836.exr > > > > random_0332.exr random_0495.exr > random_1572.exr > > > > random_1900.exr random > > > > _2467.exr random_1113.exr > > > > 103.884014 192.168.10.158 -> 192.168.10.5 > NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Call, FH:0xa216e302 > > > > 103.965167 192.168.10.5 -> 192.168.10.158 > NFS > > V3 > > > > READDIRPLUS Reply (Call In 2316) > random_0753.exr > > > > random_2006.exr random_021 > > > > 6.exr random_1824.exr random_1456.exr > > random_1790.exr > > > > random_1037.exr random_0677.exr > random_2122.exr > > > > random_0101.exr random > > > > _1741.exr random_2235.exr > > > > > > > > Calls are sent and replies received at the > 28 > > second mark, > > > > and then... nothing... until the 103 second > > mark. I'm > > > > sure the server must be somehow telling the > > client that it's > > > > busy, but - at least with the tools I'm > looking > > at - I don't > > > > see how. Is tshark just hiding TCP delays > and > > > > retransmits from me? > > > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interesting. So the reason it's > > > > > switching back and forth between > readdirplus > > and > > > > getattr > > > > > during the same ls command is because > the > > command is > > > > taking > > > > > so long to run that the cache is > > periodically expiring > > > > as > > > > > the command is running? > > > > > > > > > > I'll do some playing with actimeo to > see if > > I'm > > > > actually > > > > > understanding this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Steven Procter > <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is due to client caching. > > > > > > When the second ls -l runs the > cache > > > > > > contains an entry for the > directory. > > The client > > > > can > > > > > > check if the cached > > > > > > directory data is still valid by > > issuing a > > > > GETATTR on > > > > > the > > > > > > directory. > > > > > > > > > > > > But this only validates the names, > not > > the > > > > > attributes, > > > > > > which are not > > > > > > actually part of the directory. > Those > > must be > > > > > > refetched. So the client > > > > > > issues a GETATTR for each entry in > the > > > > directory. > > > > > It > > > > > > issues them > > > > > > sequentially, probably as ls > calls > > readdir() and > > > > then > > > > > > stat() > > > > > > sequentially on the directory > entries. > > > > > > > > > > > > This takes so long that the cache > entry > > times out > > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > next time you > > > > > > run ls -l the client reloads the > > directory using > > > > > > READDIRPLUS. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Steven > > > > > > > > > > > > > X-Mailer: > YahooMailClassic/12.0.2 > > > > > > > YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617 > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 > > 15:24:15 > > > > > > -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > From: Andrew Klaassen > <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Subject: readdirplus/getattr > > > > > > > To: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > Sender: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been trying to get my > Linux > > NFS clients > > > > to > > > > > be a > > > > > > little snappier about listing > large > > directories > > > > from > > > > > > heavily-loaded servers. I found > the > > following > > > > > > fascinating behaviour (this is > with > > > > > 2.6.31.14-0.6-desktop, > > > > > > x86_64, from openSUSE 11.3, > Solaris > > Express 11 > > > > NFS > > > > > server): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With "ls -l --color=none" on > a > > directory > > > > with > > > > > 2500 > > > > > > files: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | rdirplus | > > > > > > nordirplus | > > > > > > > > > > > > > |1st |2nd |1st |1st > |2nd > > > > > > |1st | > > > > > > > > > > > > > |run |run |run |run > |run > > > > > > |run | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |light|light|heavy|light|light|heavy| > > > > > > > |load > > > > > > |load |load |load |load |load | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > readdir | 0 > > > > > > | 0 | 0 | 25 > > > > > > | 0 | 25 | > > > > > > > readdirplus | 209 | 0 > | > > 276 > > > > > > | 0 | 0 > > > > > > | 0 | > > > > > > > lookup | 16 > > > > > > | 0 | 10 |2316 | 0 > > > > > > |2473 | > > > > > > > getattr | 1 > |2501 > > > > > > |2452 | 1 |2465 | 1 | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The most interesting case is > with > > rdirplus > > > > > specified > > > > > > as a mount option to a heavily > loaded > > server. > > > > The > > > > > NFS > > > > > > client keeps switching back and > forth > > between > > > > > readdirplus > > > > > > and getattr: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~10 seconds doing ~70 > > readdirplus calls, > > > > > > followed by > > > > > > > ~150 seconds doing ~800 > gettattr > > calls, > > > > > followed > > > > > > by > > > > > > > ~12 seconds doing ~70 > > readdirplus calls, > > > > > > followed by > > > > > > > ~200 seconds doing ~800 > gettattr > > calls, > > > > > followed > > > > > > by > > > > > > > ~20 seconds doing ~130 > > readdirplus calls, > > > > > > followed by > > > > > > > ~220 seconds doing ~800 > gettattr > > calls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the calls appear to get > > reasonably > > > > prompt > > > > > replies > > > > > > (never more than a second or so), > which > > makes me > > > > > wonder why > > > > > > it keeps switching back and forth > > between the > > > > > > strategies. (Especially since > I've > > specified > > > > > rdirplus > > > > > > as a mount option.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it supposed to do that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see how it > does > > with > > > > > readdirplus > > > > > > ~only~, no getattr calls, since > it's > > spending > > > > only 40 > > > > > > seconds in total on readdirplus > calls > > compared to > > > > 570 > > > > > > seconds in total on (redundant, I > > think, based on > > > > the > > > > > > lightly-loaded case) getattr > calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It'd also be nice to be able > to > > force > > > > > readdirplus > > > > > > calls instead of getattr calls > for > > second and > > > > > subsequent > > > > > > listings of a directory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw a recent thread > talking > > about > > > > readdirplus > > > > > > changes in 2.6.37, so I'll give > that a > > try when I > > > > get > > > > > a > > > > > > chance to see how it behaves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this > list: > > send the > > > > line > > > > > > "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > > > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > -- > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: > send the > > line > > > > > "unsubscribe > > > > > > linux-nfs" in > > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send > the > > line > > > > "unsubscribe > > > > > linux-nfs" in > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the > line > > "unsubscribe > > > > linux-nfs" in > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > > "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
