On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 17:38, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/7/2022 1:57 PM, Daire Byrne wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As part of my ongoing investigations into high latency WAN NFS > > performance with only a single client (for the purposes of then > > re-exporting), I have been looking at the metadata performance > > differences between NFSv3 and NFSv4.2. > > > > High latency seems to be a particularly good way of highlighting the > > parallel/concurrency performance limitations with a single NFS client. > > So I took a client 200ms away from the server and ran things like > > open() and stat() calls to many files & directories using simultaneous > > threads (200+) to see how many requests and operations we could keep > > in flight simultaneously. > > > > The executive summary is that NFSv4 is around 10x worse than NFSv3 and > > an NFSv4 client clearly flatlines at around 180 ops/s with 200ms. By > > comparison, an NFSv3 client can do around 1,500 ops/s (access+lookup) > > with the same test. > > > > On paper, NFSv4 is more compelling over the WAN as it should reduce > > round trips with things like compound operations and delegations, but > > that's only good if it can do lots of them simultaneously too. > > > > Comparing the slot table/xport stats between the two protocols while > > running the benchmark highlights the difference: > > > > NFSv3 > > opts: rw,vers=3,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,acregmin=3600,acregmax=3600,acdirmin=3600,acdirmax=3600,hard,nocto,noresvport,proto=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=10,sec=sys,mountaddr=10.25.22.17,mountvers=3,mountport=20048,mountproto=udp,fsc,local_lock=none > > xprt: tcp 0 1 2 0 0 85480 85380 0 6549783 0 102 166291 6296122 > > xprt: tcp 0 1 2 0 0 85827 85727 0 6575842 0 102 149914 6322130 > > xprt: tcp 0 1 2 0 0 85674 85574 0 6577487 0 102 131288 6320278 > > xprt: tcp 0 1 2 0 0 84943 84843 0 6505613 0 102 182313 6251396 > > > > NFSv4.2 > > opts: rw,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,acregmin=3600,acregmax=3600,acdirmin=3600,acdirmax=3600,hard,nocto,noresvport,proto=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=10,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.25.112.8,fsc,local_lock=none > > xprt: tcp 0 0 2 0 0 301 301 0 1439 0 9 80 1058 > > xprt: tcp 0 0 2 0 0 294 294 0 1452 0 10 79 1085 > > xprt: tcp 0 0 2 0 0 292 292 0 1443 0 10 102 1055 > > xprt: tcp 0 0 2 0 0 287 286 0 1407 0 9 64 1067 > > > > So either we aren't putting things into the slot table quickly enough > > for it to scale up, or it just isn't scaling for some other reason. > > > > The max slots of 101 for NFSv3 and 10 for NFSv4.2 probably accounts > > for the aggregate difference of 10x I see in benchmarking? > > > > I tried increasing the /sys/module/nfs/parameters/max_session_slots > > from 64 to 128 on the client (modprobe.conf & reboot) but it didn't > > seem to make much difference. Maybe it's a server side limit then and > > the lowest is being used: > > > > fs/nfsd/stat.h: > > #define NFSD_SLOT_CACHE_SIZE 2048 > > /* Maximum number of NFSD_SLOT_CACHE_SIZE slots per session */ > > #define NFSD_CACHE_SIZE_SLOTS_PER_SESSION 32 > > > > I'm sure there are probably good reasons for these values (like > > stopping a client from hogging the queue) but is this the reason I see > > such a big difference in the performance of concurrency for a single > > client over high latencies? > > Daire, I'm interested in your results if you increase the server slot > limits. Remember that the "slot" is an NFSv4.1+ protocol element. In > NFSv3 and v4.0, there is no protocol-based flow control, so the max > outstanding RPC counts are effectively the smaller of the client's and > server's RPC task and/or thread limits, and of course the wire itself. > > With a 200msec RTT and a single-threaded workload, you'll get 5 ops/sec, > times 32 slots that's pretty much the 180 you see. So I'd expect it to > rise linearly as you scale both ends' slot numbers. I finally got around to testing this again. I recompiled a server kernel with: NFSD_CACHE_SIZE_SLOTS_PER_SESSION=256 I ran some more tests and as predicted this helps a lot. Because the client default for the client's max_sessions_slots=64 (where the server is 32), I saw double the concurrency straightaway. And then as I increased the client's max_sessions_slots (up to 256) it kept on improving. I guess I would need to set the server and client slots to be around 512 to see the same concurrency performance as for NFSv3 with 200ms. Which I guess leads on to some questions: 1) Why is NFSD_CACHE_SIZE_SLOTS_PER_SESSION not a tunable? We don't really want to maintain our own kernel compiles on our RHEL8 servers. 2) Why is the default linux client slot count 64 and the server's is 32? You can tune the linux client down and not up (if using a Linux server). 3) What would be the recommended and safest way to have a few high latency clients with increased slots and concurrency? I'm thinking it would be better to have the server default be higher and the linux client default be 32 instead to replicate the current situation. But no doubt there are other storage filers that already rely on the fact that the Linux client uses 64 (e.g. cloud Netapps and the like). It's probably just a lot less hassle to stick with NFSv3 for this kind of high latency multi process concurrency use case. Daire
