On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Nir Soffer <nsof...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:55 PM Nir Soffer <nsof...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:27 PM Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 07.11.2018 um 15:56 hat Nir Soffer geschrieben:
>>> > Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:36 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Another thing I tried was to change the NBD server (nbdkit) so that
>>> it
>>> > > doesn't advertise zero support to the client:
>>> > >
>>> > > $ nbdkit --filter=log --filter=nozero memory size=6G
>>> logfile=/tmp/log \
>>> > > --run './qemu-img convert ./fedora-28.img -n $nbd'
>>> > > $ grep '\.\.\.$' /tmp/log | sed 's/.*\([A-Z][a-z]*\).*/\1/' | uniq
>>> -c
>>> > > 2154 Write
>>> > >
>>> > > Not surprisingly no zero commands are issued. The size of the write
>>> > > commands is very uneven -- it appears to be send one command per
>>> block
>>> > > of zeroes or data.
>>> > >
>>> > > Nir: If we could get information from imageio about whether zeroing
>>> is
>>> > > implemented efficiently or not by the backend, we could change
>>> > > virt-v2v / nbdkit to advertise this back to qemu.
>>> >
>>> > There is no way to detect the capability, ioctl(BLKZEROOUT) always
>>> > succeeds, falling back to manual zeroing in the kernel silently
>>> >
>>> > Even if we could, sending zero on the wire from qemu may be even
>>> > slower, and it looks like qemu send even more requests in this case
>>> > (2154 vs ~1300).
>>> >
>>> > Looks like this optimization in qemu side leads to worse performance,
>>> > so it should not be enabled by default.
>>>
>>> Well, that's overgeneralising your case a bit. If the backend does
>>> support efficient zero writes (which file systems, the most common case,
>>> generally do), doing one big write_zeroes request at the start can
>>> improve performance quite a bit.
>>>
>>> It seems the problem is that we can't really know whether the operation
>>> will be efficient because the backends generally don't tell us. Maybe
>>> NBD could introduce a flag for this, but in the general case it appears
>>> to me that we'll have to have a command line option.
>>>
>>> However, I'm curious what your exact use case and the backend used in it
>>> is? Can something be improved there to actually get efficient zero
>>> writes and get even better performance than by just disabling the big
>>> zero write?
>>
>>
>> The backend is some NetApp storage connected via FC. I don't have
>> more info on this. We get zero rate of about 1G/s on this storage, which
>> is quite slow compared with other storage we tested.
>>
>> One option we check now is if this is the kernel silent fallback to manual
>> zeroing when the server advertise wrong value of write_same_max_bytes.
>>
>
> We eliminated this using blkdiscard. This is what we get on with this
> storage
> zeroing 100G LV:
>
> for i in 1 2 4 8 16 32; do time blkdiscard -z -p ${i}m
> /dev/6e1d84f9-f939-46e9-b108-0427a08c280c/2d5c06ce-6536-4b3c-a7b6-13c6d8e55ade;
> done
>
> real 4m50.851s
> user 0m0.065s
> sys 0m1.482s
>
> real 4m30.504s
> user 0m0.047s
> sys 0m0.870s
>
> real 4m19.443s
> user 0m0.029s
> sys 0m0.508s
>
> real 4m13.016s
> user 0m0.020s
> sys 0m0.284s
>
> real 2m45.888s
> user 0m0.011s
> sys 0m0.162s
>
> real 2m10.153s
> user 0m0.003s
> sys 0m0.100s
>
> We are investigating why we get low throughput on this server, and also
> will check
> several other servers.
>
> Having a command line option to control this behavior sounds good. I don't
>> have enough data to tell what should be the default, but I think the safe
>> way would be to keep old behavior.
>>
>
> We file this bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1648622
>
More data from even slower storage - zeroing 10G lv on Kaminario K2
# time blkdiscard -z -p 32m /dev/test_vg/test_lv2
real 50m12.425s
user 0m0.018s
sys 2m6.785s
Maybe something is wrong with this storage, since we see this:
# grep -s "" /sys/block/dm-29/queue/* | grep write_same_max_bytes
/sys/block/dm-29/queue/write_same_max_bytes:512
Since BLKZEROOUT always fallback to manual slow zeroing silently,
maybe we can disable the aggressive pre-zero of the entire device
for block devices, and keep this optimization for files when fallocate()
is supported?
Nir
