On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Blinick, Stephen L wrote:
> Hi -- was running some baselines on 0.93 and wanted to check, will 
> wip-auth changes go into Hamer or in a later release?  (Sorry if I 
> missed the discussion in one of the perf meetings last month)

It will go in after hammer.  We can backport as needed.

sage

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stephen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org 
> [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:25 PM
> To: Sage Weil; Andreas Bluemle
> Cc: Blinick, Stephen L; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: wip-auth
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I completed some tests with wip-auth to the memstore on ubuntu earlier today. 
>  Basic gist of it is that the improvements in wip-auth help but don't quite 
> get us to what can be achieved with auth disabled.  RHEL7 (without auth) 
> continues to do very well in latency bound situations. 
> Next up will be to see if how much this matters when testing against on SSDs.
> 
> Here are the results:
> 
> sync 4k object writes
> =====================
> 
> Ceph          OS              Auth    Avg Lat (ms)    Avg IOPS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     0.99            1007
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     0.81            1237
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    No      0.64            1549
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    No      0.65            1563
> master                RHEL7           No      0.32            3158
> 
> sync 4k object reads
> ====================
> 
> Ceph          OS              Auth    Avg Lat (ms)    Avg IOPS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     0.59            1695
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     0.41            2409
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    No      0.29            3425
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    No      0.29            3474
> master                RHEL7           No      0.17            5853
> 
> 256 concurrent 4k object writes
> ===============================
> 
> Ceph          OS              Auth    Avg Lat (ms)    Avg IOPS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     40.39           6339
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     26.22           9763
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    No      17.46           14662
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    No      17.34           14759
> master                RHEL7           No      14.93           17139
> 
> 256 concurrent 4k object reads
> ==============================
> 
> Ceph          OS              Auth    Avg Lat (ms)    Avg IOPS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     31.47           8134
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    Yes     19.81           12922
> master                Ubuntu 14.04    No      12.82           19968
> Wip-auth      Ubuntu 14.04    No      12.75           20080
> master                RHEL7           No      12.04           21257
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 01/30/2015 03:08 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > It looks like that was a stale sha1, but the newer one was also 
> > broken.  I've retested and it's working for me now.  See latest 
> > wip-auth,
> > sha1 0c21a7875059bef80842756dfb003f47cc2d66a6.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > sage
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Andreas Bluemle wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sage,
> >>
> >> I tried to integrate wip-auth into my 0.91 build environment.
> >>
> >> I had not been able to start the cluster successfully: ceph-mon 
> >> crashes with a segmentation fault in CryptoKey::encrypt() (see 
> >> attachment).
> >>
> >> This happens when linking with libnss or libcryptopp (version 5.6.2).
> >>
> >> I created the patch to add wip-auth based on github pull request 3523 
> >> and was able to use this patch directly with 0.91 with only a minor 
> >> adaptation for common/ceph_context.h:
> >> the 0.91 version of ceph_context.h did not know anything about the 
> >> experimental "class CephContextObs".
> >>
> >> wip-auth commit ID is 1a0507a2940f6edcc2bf9533cfa6c210b0b41933.
> >>
> >> As my build environment is rpm, I had to modify the invocation of the 
> >> configure script in the spec file instead of the do_autogen.sh 
> >> script.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >>
> >> Andreas Bluemle
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:18:45 -0800 (PST) Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I spent some time focusing on just CryptoKey::encrypt().  I 
> >>> benchmarked 100,000 encrypts of 128 bytes and got, at baseline,
> >>>
> >>>   cryptopp: 100000 encoded in 0.655651
> >>>   libnss  : 100000 encoded in 1.288786
> >>>
> >>> Ouch!  With a (fixed) version of my earlier patch that avoids 
> >>> uselessly copying the input buffer:
> >>>
> >>>   100000 encoded in 1.231977
> >>>
> >>> With a patch that puts the key structures in CryptoKey instead of 
> >>> recreating them each time:
> >>>
> >>>   100000 encoded in 0.396208  -- ~70% improvement over original
> >>>
> >>> This is pushed to wip-auth.  There's also a patch that caches key 
> >>> structs for crypopp.. it now takes
> >>>
> >>>   100000 encoded in 0.440758  -- ~33% improvement over original
> >>>
> >>> (Not that almost anybody will ever care; we use libnss by default 
> >>> for both rpm and deb distros.)
> >>>
> >>> So, yay, nss is now a bit faster.  What I'm not completely certain 
> >>> about is whether the structures I've preserved are truly stateless 
> >>> (and can be shared across threads, etc.).  They encrypt/decrypt 
> >>> methods are const so, if the libraries are const-correct, it should 
> >>> be fine... but perhaps someone familiar with nss and/or crypto++ can 
> >>> review this?
> >>>
> >>> This is pushed to the latest wip-auth branch:
> >>>
> >>>   https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/wip-auth
> >>>
> >>> Andreas and Stephen, what effect does this have on your numbers?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> sage
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Blinick, Stephen L wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good to know, I was wondering why the spec file defaulted to 
> >>>> lib-nss.. the dpkg-build for debian packages just uses whatever 
> >>>> configuration you had built, and I believe that will use 
> >>>> libcryptopp if the dependency is installed on the build machine 
> >>>> (last I looked).
> >>>>
> >>>> I forgot to mention the numbers below were based on v.91.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org 
> >>>> [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil
> >>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:24 AM To: Blinick, Stephen L
> >>>> Cc: andreas.blue...@itxperts.de; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: wip-auth
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Blinick, Stephen L wrote:
> >>>>> I noticed that the spec file for building RPM's defaults to 
> >>>>> building with libnss, instead of libcrypto++.  Since the 
> >>>>> measurements I'd done so far were from those RPM's I rebuilt with
> >>>>> libcrypto++.. so FWIW here is the difference between those two on
> >>>>> my system, memstore backend with a single OSD, and single client.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dual socket Xeon E5 2620v3, 64GB Memory,  RHEL7
> >>>>> Kernel: 3.10.0-123.13.2.el7
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 100% 4K Writes, 1xOSD w/ Rados Bench
> >>>>>         libnss                      |
> >>>>> Cryptopp # QD   IOPS    Latency(ms)   |
> >>>>> IOPS    Latency(ms)     IOPS Improvement % 16
> >>>>> 14432.57        1.11    |       18896.60        0.85
> >>>>> 30.93% 100% 4K Reads, 1xOSD w/ Rados Bench libnss | Cryptopp # QD 
> >>>>> IOPS Latency(ms)  | IOPS Latency(ms) IOPS Improvement % 16 
> >>>>> 19532.53 0.82 | 25708.70 0.62 31.62%
> >>>>
> >>>> Yikes, 30%!  I think this definitely worth some effort.  We 
> >>>> switched to libnss because it has the weird government 
> >>>> certfiications that everyone wants and is more prevalent.  crypto++ 
> >>>> is also not packaged for Red Hat distros at all (presumably for 
> >>>> that reason).
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect that most of the overhead is in the encryption context 
> >>>> setup and can be avoided with a bit of effort..
> >>>>
> >>>> sage
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org 
> >>>>> [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:56 PM
> >>>>> To: andreas.blue...@itxperts.de
> >>>>> Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>> Subject: wip-auth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Andreas,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I took a look at the wip-auth I mentioned in the security call 
> >>>>> last week... and the patch didn't work at all.  Sorry if you 
> >>>>> wasted any time trying it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, I fixed it up so that it actually worked and made one 
> >>>>> other optimization.  It would be great to hear what latencies you 
> >>>>> measure with the changes in place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, it might be worth trying --with-cryptopp (or --with-nss if 
> >>>>> you built cryptopp by default) to see if there is a difference.
> >>>>> There is a ton of boilerplate setting up encryption contexts and 
> >>>>> key structures and so on that I suspect could be cached (perhaps 
> >>>>> stashed in the CryptoKey struct?) with a bit of effort.  See
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         
> >>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/auth/Crypto.cc#L99-L2
> >>>>> 13
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sage
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> >>>>> ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org 
> >>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> >>>> ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org 
> >>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> >>>> ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org 
> >>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andreas Bluemle                     mailto:andreas.blue...@itxperts.de
> >> ITXperts GmbH                       http://www.itxperts.de
> >> Balanstrasse 73, Geb. 08            Phone: (+49) 89 89044917
> >> D-81541 Muenchen (Germany)          Fax:   (+49) 89 89044910
> >>
> >> Company details: http://www.itxperts.de/imprint.htm
> >>
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" 
> > in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo 
> > info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the 
> body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to