RE: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Thanks. -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 8:09 AM To: Duan, Jiangang; Sage Weil; Ning Yao Cc: ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results Hi Jiangang, These specific tests are 512K random writes using fio with the librbd engine and iodepth of 64. RBD volumes have been pre-allocated. There's no file system present. I also collected results for 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, 256k, 512k, 1024k, 2048k, and 4096k for random and and sequential writes with different overlay sizes: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ client side performance graphs were posted earlier in the thread here: http://marc.info/?l=ceph-devel&m=142868123431724&w=2 Mark On 04/10/2015 06:43 PM, Duan, Jiangang wrote: > Mark, What is the workload pattern for below data? Small IO or big IO? New > file or in-place update in RBD? > > Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of > the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would > have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to > journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier > to me than that. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite > _OSD0.mpg > > newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like > it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance > is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. > Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg > > newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to > the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by > the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification > happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg > > > -Original Message- > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 4:05 AM > To: Sage Weil; Ning Yao > Cc: Duan, Jiangang; ceph-devel > Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results > > Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between filestore, > newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite > .png > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e.png > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e.png > > The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: > > filestore: 20.44MB/s > newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s > newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s > > But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. > > Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of > the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would > have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to > journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier > to me than that. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite > _OSD0.mpg > > newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like > it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance > is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. > Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg > > newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to > the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by > the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification > happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg > > Mark > > On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of >> the >> tests: >> >> http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ >> >> Mark >> >> On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >>> Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO >>> sizes for writes and random writes. Basicall
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Hi Jiangang, These specific tests are 512K random writes using fio with the librbd engine and iodepth of 64. RBD volumes have been pre-allocated. There's no file system present. I also collected results for 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, 256k, 512k, 1024k, 2048k, and 4096k for random and and sequential writes with different overlay sizes: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ client side performance graphs were posted earlier in the thread here: http://marc.info/?l=ceph-devel&m=142868123431724&w=2 Mark On 04/10/2015 06:43 PM, Duan, Jiangang wrote: Mark, What is the workload pattern for below data? Small IO or big IO? New file or in-place update in RBD? Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 4:05 AM To: Sage Weil; Ning Yao Cc: Duan, Jiangang; ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between filestore, newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: filestore: 20.44MB/s newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg Mark On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of the tests: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ Mark On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're still not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. Mark On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need self-implemented WAL? What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys (or this key range) is short-lived and should never get compacted. And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is sufficiently large so that in practice that never happens to those keys. Putting them outside the kv store means an additional seek/sync for disks, which defeats most of the purpose. Maybe it makes sense for flash... but the abov
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
I have some test results with universal compaction we did with joao's modbstore benchmark a while back: http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg19685.html More specifically this pdf has data for universal compaction: http://nhm.ceph.com/mon-store-stress/Monitor_Store_Stress_Medium_Tests.pdf Mark On 04/10/2015 06:44 PM, Duan, Jiangang wrote: You can try Universal Compaction https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/Universal-Compaction -Original Message- From: Sage Weil [mailto:s...@newdream.net] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 7:24 AM To: Mark Nelson Cc: Ning Yao; Duan, Jiangang; ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between filestore, newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite .png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit e.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit e.png The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: filestore: 20.44MB/s newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite _OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like newstore+it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit e_OSD0.mpg Yeah, looks like a bunch of write amplication... the disk bw used is really high. I think we need to look at what rocksdb is doing here. A couple things: - Make the log bigger, if we can, so that short-lived WAL keys don't get amplified. We'd rather eat memory than rewrite them in an sst since the number of them in flight is pretty well bounded. - The rocksdb log as it stands isn't ever going to perform as well as the FileJournal currently does. The FileJouranl uses a fixed-size device or file that's preallocated with no 'size' associated with it, so that when there is a write we only have to push down the data blocks (one seek), and on replay can identify valid records with a seq # and checksum. Rocksdb's log is a .log file that grows and get's fsync(2)'d, which means that the data blocks have to hit the disk *and* the inode (size) needs to get updated for the commit to happen. We could improve this by doing a fallocate and turning it into a circular buffer. I'm not sure XFS will let us fallocate a fresh file of 0's though and avoid a second seek because it'll still need to flip the extent bits when the data blocks are written... or prefill the file with 0's before using it. :/ sage newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to newstore+the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit e_OSD0.mpg Mark On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of the tests: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ Mark On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're still not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. Mark On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need self-implemented WAL? What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys (or this key range) is short-lived and should never get compacted. And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is sufficiently large so that in practice that never happens to those keys. Putting them outside the kv store means an additional seek/sync for disks, which defeats most of the purpose. Maybe it makes sense for flash... but the above avoids the problem in either case. I think we should target rocksdb for our initial tuning attempts.
RE: Initial newstore vs filestore results
You can try Universal Compaction https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/Universal-Compaction -Original Message- From: Sage Weil [mailto:s...@newdream.net] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 7:24 AM To: Mark Nelson Cc: Ning Yao; Duan, Jiangang; ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: > Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between > filestore, newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite > .png > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e.png > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e.png > > The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: > > filestore: 20.44MB/s > newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s > newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s > > But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. > > Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific > portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written > out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking > writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that > portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite > _OSD0.mpg > > newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like > newstore+it's > somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write > performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data > hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg Yeah, looks like a bunch of write amplication... the disk bw used is really high. I think we need to look at what rocksdb is doing here. A couple things: - Make the log bigger, if we can, so that short-lived WAL keys don't get amplified. We'd rather eat memory than rewrite them in an sst since the number of them in flight is pretty well bounded. - The rocksdb log as it stands isn't ever going to perform as well as the FileJournal currently does. The FileJouranl uses a fixed-size device or file that's preallocated with no 'size' associated with it, so that when there is a write we only have to push down the data blocks (one seek), and on replay can identify valid records with a seq # and checksum. Rocksdb's log is a .log file that grows and get's fsync(2)'d, which means that the data blocks have to hit the disk *and* the inode (size) needs to get updated for the commit to happen. We could improve this by doing a fallocate and turning it into a circular buffer. I'm not sure XFS will let us fallocate a fresh file of 0's though and avoid a second seek because it'll still need to flip the extent bits when the data blocks are written... or prefill the file with 0's before using it. :/ sage > > newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to > newstore+the disk > in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the > client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification > happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrit > e_OSD0.mpg > > Mark > > On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > > Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of > > the > > tests: > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ > > > > Mark > > > > On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > > > Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO > > > sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we > > > increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're > > > still not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. > > > > > > I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: > > > > > KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need > > > > > self-implemented WAL? > > > > > > > > What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys > > > > (or this key range) is short-lived and should never get > > > > compacted. And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is > > > > sufficiently large so that in pra
RE: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Mark, What is the workload pattern for below data? Small IO or big IO? New file or in-place update in RBD? Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 4:05 AM To: Sage Weil; Ning Yao Cc: Duan, Jiangang; ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between filestore, newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: filestore: 20.44MB/s newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg Mark On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of > the > tests: > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ > > Mark > > On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO >> sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we >> increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're still >> not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. >> >> I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. >> >> Mark >> >> On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: >>>> KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need >>>> self-implemented WAL? >>> >>> What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys (or >>> this key range) is short-lived and should never get compacted. >>> And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is sufficiently large so >>> that in practice that never happens to those keys. >>> >>> Putting them outside the kv store means an additional seek/sync for >>> disks, which defeats most of the purpose. Maybe it makes sense for >>> flash... >>> but >>> the above avoids the problem in either case. >>> >>> I think we should target rocksdb for our initial tuning attempts. >>> So far all I've done is played a bit with the file size (1mb -> 4mb >>> -> 8mb) but my ad hoc tes
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
> I think we should target rocksdb for our initial tuning attempts. So > > > > far > > > > all I've done is played a bit with the file size (1mb -> 4mb -> 8mb) > > > > but my ad hoc tests didn't see much difference. > > > > > > > > sage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Ning Yao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-04-10 14:11 GMT+08:00 Duan, Jiangang : > > > > > > IMHO, the newstore performance depends so much on KV store > > > > > > performance due to the WAL - so pick up the right KV or tune it > > > > > > will be the 1st step to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > -jiangang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:01 AM > > > > > > To: Sage Weil > > > > > > Cc: ceph-devel > > > > > > Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/08/2015 10:19 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > > > > > > > On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > > > > > > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB > > > > > > > > performance > > > > > > > > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays > > > > > > > > disabled > > > > > > > > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here we go. 1 OSD, 1X replication. 16GB RBD volume. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4MBwritereadrandwrandr > > > > > > > default overlay36.13106.6134.4992.69 > > > > > > > no overlay36.29105.6134.4993.55 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128KBwritereadrandwrandr > > > > > > > default overlay1.7197.901.6525.79 > > > > > > > no overlay1.7297.801.6625.78 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4KBwritereadrandwrandr > > > > > > > default overlay0.4061.881.291.11 > > > > > > > no overlay0.0561.260.051.10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Update this morning. Also ran filestore tests for comparison. Next > > > > > > we'll look at how tweaking the overlay for different IO sizes > > > > > > affects things. IE the overlay threshold is 64k right now and it > > > > > > appears that 128K write IOs for instance are quite a bit worse with > > > > > > newstore currently than with filestore. Sage also just committed > > > > > > changes that will allow overlay writes during append/create which > > > > > > may help improve small IO write performance as well in some cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4MB write readrandw randr > > > > > > default overlay 36.13 106.61 34.49 92.69 > > > > > > no overlay 36.29 105.61 34.49 93.55 > > > > > > filestore 36.17 84.59 34.11 79.85 > > > > > > > > > > > > 128KB write readrandw randr > > > > > > default overlay 1.7197.90 1.6525.79 > > > > > > no overlay 1.7297.80 1.6625.78 > > > > > > filestore 27.15 79.91 8.7719.00 > > > > > > > > > > > > 4KB write readrandw randr > > > > > > default overlay 0.4061.88 1.291.11 > > > > > > no overlay 0.0561.26 0.051.10 > > > > > > filestore 4.1456.30 0.420.76 > > > > > > > > > > > > Seekwatcher movies and graphs available here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Note for instance the very interesting blktrace patterns for 4K > > > > > > random writes on the OSD in each case: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/filestore/RBD_4096_randwrite.png > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/default_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/no_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Notice for instance a comparison of random 512k writes between filestore, newstore with no overlay, and newstore with 8m overlay: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite.png The client rbd throughput as reported by fio is: filestore: 20.44MB/s newstore+no_overlay: 4.35MB/s newstore+8m_overlay: 3.86MB/s But notice that in the graphs, we see very different behaviors on disk. Filestore does a lot of reads and writes to a couple of specific portions of the device and has peaks/valleys when data gets written out in bulk. I would have expected to see more sequential looking writes during the peaks due to journal writes and no reads to that portion of the disk, but it seems murkier to me than that. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/filestore/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+no_overlay does kind of a flurry of random IO and looks like it's somewhat seek bound. It's very consistent but actual write performance is low compared to what blktrace reports as the data hitting the disk. Something happening toward the beginning of the drive too. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/no_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg newstore+8m overlay is interesting. Lots of data gets written out to the disk in seemingly large chunks but the actual throughput as reported by the client is very slow. I assume there's tons of write amplification happening as rocksdb moves the 512k objects around into different levels. http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/8m_overlay/RBD_00524288_randwrite_OSD0.mpg Mark On 04/10/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of the tests: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ Mark On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're still not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. Mark On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need self-implemented WAL? What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys (or this key range) is short-lived and should never get compacted. And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is sufficiently large so that in practice that never happens to those keys. Putting them outside the kv store means an additional seek/sync for disks, which defeats most of the purpose. Maybe it makes sense for flash... but the above avoids the problem in either case. I think we should target rocksdb for our initial tuning attempts. So far all I've done is played a bit with the file size (1mb -> 4mb -> 8mb) but my ad hoc tests didn't see much difference. sage Regards Ning Yao 2015-04-10 14:11 GMT+08:00 Duan, Jiangang : IMHO, the newstore performance depends so much on KV store performance due to the WAL - so pick up the right KV or tune it will be the 1st step to do. -jiangang -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:01 AM To: Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On 04/08/2015 10:19 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. And here we go. 1 OSD, 1X replication. 16GB RBD volume. 4MBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay36.13106.6134.4992.69 no overlay36.29105.6134.4993.55 128KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay1.7197.901.6525.79 no overlay1.7297.801.6625.78 4KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay0.4061.881.291.11 no overlay0.0561.260.051.10 Update this morning. Also ran filestore tests for comparison. Next we'll look at how tweaking the overlay for different IO sizes affects things. IE the overlay threshold is 64k right now and it appears that 128K write IOs for instance are quite a bit worse with newstore currently than with filestore. Sage also just committed changes that will allow overlay writes during append/create which may help improve small IO write performance as well in some cases. 4MB write readrandw randr default overlay 36.13 106.61 34.49 92.69 no overlay 36.29 105.61 34.49 93.55 filestore
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Seekwatcher movies and graphs finally finished generating for all of the tests: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150409/ Mark On 04/10/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Test results attached for different overlay settings at various IO sizes for writes and random writes. Basically it looks like as we increase the overlay size it changes the curve. So far we're still not doing as good as the filestore (co-located journal) though. I imagine the WAL probably does play a big part here. Mark On 04/10/2015 10:28 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Ning Yao wrote: KV store introduces too much write amplification, we may need self-implemented WAL? What we really want is to hint to the kv store that these keys (or this key range) is short-lived and should never get compacted. And/or, we need to just make sure the wal is sufficiently large so that in practice that never happens to those keys. Putting them outside the kv store means an additional seek/sync for disks, which defeats most of the purpose. Maybe it makes sense for flash... but the above avoids the problem in either case. I think we should target rocksdb for our initial tuning attempts. So far all I've done is played a bit with the file size (1mb -> 4mb -> 8mb) but my ad hoc tests didn't see much difference. sage Regards Ning Yao 2015-04-10 14:11 GMT+08:00 Duan, Jiangang : IMHO, the newstore performance depends so much on KV store performance due to the WAL - so pick up the right KV or tune it will be the 1st step to do. -jiangang -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:01 AM To: Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On 04/08/2015 10:19 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. And here we go. 1 OSD, 1X replication. 16GB RBD volume. 4MBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay36.13106.6134.4992.69 no overlay36.29105.6134.4993.55 128KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay1.7197.901.6525.79 no overlay1.7297.801.6625.78 4KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay0.4061.881.291.11 no overlay0.0561.260.051.10 Update this morning. Also ran filestore tests for comparison. Next we'll look at how tweaking the overlay for different IO sizes affects things. IE the overlay threshold is 64k right now and it appears that 128K write IOs for instance are quite a bit worse with newstore currently than with filestore. Sage also just committed changes that will allow overlay writes during append/create which may help improve small IO write performance as well in some cases. 4MB write readrandw randr default overlay 36.13 106.61 34.49 92.69 no overlay 36.29 105.61 34.49 93.55 filestore 36.17 84.59 34.11 79.85 128KB write readrandw randr default overlay 1.7197.90 1.6525.79 no overlay 1.7297.80 1.6625.78 filestore 27.15 79.91 8.7719.00 4KB write readrandw randr default overlay 0.4061.88 1.291.11 no overlay 0.0561.26 0.051.10 filestore 4.1456.30 0.420.76 Seekwatcher movies and graphs available here: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/ Note for instance the very interesting blktrace patterns for 4K random writes on the OSD in each case: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/filestore/RBD_4096_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/default_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/no_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png Mark -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On 04/08/2015 10:19 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. And here we go. 1 OSD, 1X replication. 16GB RBD volume. 4MBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay36.13106.6134.4992.69 no overlay36.29105.6134.4993.55 128KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay1.7197.901.6525.79 no overlay1.7297.801.6625.78 4KBwritereadrandwrandr default overlay0.4061.881.291.11 no overlay0.0561.260.051.10 Update this morning. Also ran filestore tests for comparison. Next we'll look at how tweaking the overlay for different IO sizes affects things. IE the overlay threshold is 64k right now and it appears that 128K write IOs for instance are quite a bit worse with newstore currently than with filestore. Sage also just committed changes that will allow overlay writes during append/create which may help improve small IO write performance as well in some cases. 4MB write readrandw randr default overlay 36.13 106.61 34.49 92.69 no overlay 36.29 105.61 34.49 93.55 filestore 36.17 84.59 34.11 79.85 128KB write readrandw randr default overlay 1.7197.90 1.6525.79 no overlay 1.7297.80 1.6625.78 filestore 27.15 79.91 8.7719.00 4KB write readrandw randr default overlay 0.4061.88 1.291.11 no overlay 0.0561.26 0.051.10 filestore 4.1456.30 0.420.76 Seekwatcher movies and graphs available here: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/ Note for instance the very interesting blktrace patterns for 4K random writes on the OSD in each case: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/filestore/RBD_4096_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/default_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150408/no_overlay/RBD_4096_randwrite.png Mark -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those interested: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! Mark New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: write readrandw randr 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. And here we go. 1 OSD, 1X replication. 16GB RBD volume. 4MB write readrandw randr default overlay 36.13 106.61 34.49 92.69 no overlay 36.29 105.61 34.49 93.55 128KB write readrandw randr default overlay 1.7197.90 1.6525.79 no overlay 1.7297.80 1.6625.78 4KB write readrandw randr default overlay 0.4061.88 1.291.11 no overlay 0.0561.26 0.051.10 seekwatcher movies generating now, but I'm going to bed soon so I'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to post them. :) The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It shouldn't, but we should confirm. 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here... 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Haomai Wang wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> > > Hi Guys, >> >> > > >> >> > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that >> >> > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB >> >> > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks >> >> > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals >> >> > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good >> >> > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. >> >> > > >> >> > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the >> >> > > RBD >> >> > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down >> >> > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I >> >> > > suspect there's just something odd going on. >> >> > > >> >> > > Mark >> >> > >> >> > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those >> >> > interested: >> >> > >> >> > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ >> >> > >> >> > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about >> >> > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. >> >> > >> >> > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! >> >> > >> >> > Mark >> >> >> >> New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep >> >> small >> >> overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to >> >> the >> >> 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: >> >> >> >> write readrandw randr >> >> 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 >> >> 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 >> >> 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 >> > >> > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance >> > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled >> > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. >> > >> > The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore >> > open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very >> > noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: >> > >> > 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It >> > shouldn't, but we should confirm. >> > >> > 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to >> > see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the >> > store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the >> > effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from >> > a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data >> > read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? >> > I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here.. >> >> WOW, it's really a cool implementation beyond my original mind >> according to blueprint. Handler, overlay_map and data_map looks so >> flexible and make small io cheaper in theory. Now we only have 1 >> element in data_map and I'm not sure your goal about the future's >> usage. Although I have a unclearly idea that it could enhance the role >> of NewStore and make local filesystem just as a block space allocator. >> Let NewStore own a variable of FTL(File Translation Layer), so many >> cool features could be added. What's your idea about data_map? > > Exactly, that is one option. The other is that we'd treat the data_map > similar to overlay_map with a fixed or max extent size so that a large > partial overwrite will mostly go to a new file instead of doing the > slow WAL. > >> My concern currently still is WAL after fsync and kv commiting, maybe >> fsync process is just fine because mostly we won't meet this case in >> rbd. But submit sync kv transaction isn't a low latency job I think, >> maybe we could let WAL parallel with kv commiting?(yes, I really >> concern the latency of one op :-) ) > > The WAL has to come after kv commit. But the fsync after the wal > completion sucks, especially since we are always dispatching a single > fsync at a time so it's kind of worst-case seek behavior. We could throw > these into another parallel fsync queue so that the fs can batch them up, > but I'm not sure we will enough parallelism. What would really be nice is > a batch fsync syscall, but in leiu of that maybe we wait until we have a > bunch of fsyncs pending and then throw them at the kernel together in a > bunch of threads? Not sure. These aren't normally time sensitive > unless a read comes along (which is pretty rare), but they have to be done > for correctness. > >> Then from the actual rados write op, it will add setattr and >> omap_setkeys ops. Current NewStore looks plays badly for setattr. It >> always encode all xattrs(and o
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Haomai Wang wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > >> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> >> > > Hi Guys, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that > >> >> > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB > >> >> > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks > >> >> > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD > >> >> > > journals > >> >> > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good > >> >> > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the > >> >> > > RBD > >> >> > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit > >> >> > > down > >> >> > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I > >> >> > > suspect there's just something odd going on. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Mark > >> >> > > >> >> > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for > >> >> > those > >> >> > interested: > >> >> > > >> >> > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was > >> >> > about > >> >> > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. > >> >> > > >> >> > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! > >> >> > > >> >> > Mark > >> >> > >> >> New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep > >> >> small > >> >> overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable > >> >> to the > >> >> 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in > >> >> MB/s: > >> >> > >> >> write readrandw randr > >> >> 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 > >> >> 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 > >> >> 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 > >> > > >> > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance > >> > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled > >> > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. > >> > > >> > The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore > >> > open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very > >> > noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: > >> > > >> > 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It > >> > shouldn't, but we should confirm. > >> > > >> > 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think > >> > to > >> > see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the > >> > store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the > >> > effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from > >> > a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data > >> > read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? > >> > I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here.. > >> > >> WOW, it's really a cool implementation beyond my original mind > >> according to blueprint. Handler, overlay_map and data_map looks so > >> flexible and make small io cheaper in theory. Now we only have 1 > >> element in data_map and I'm not sure your goal about the future's > >> usage. Although I have a unclearly idea that it could enhance the role > >> of NewStore and make local filesystem just as a block space allocator. > >> Let NewStore own a variable of FTL(File Translation Layer), so many > >> cool features could be added. What's your idea about data_map? > > > > Exactly, that is one option. The other is that we'd treat the data_map > > similar to overlay_map with a fixed or max extent size so that a large > > partial overwrite will mostly go to a new file instead of doing the > > slow WAL. > > > >> My concern currently still is WAL after fsync and kv commiting, maybe > >> fsync process is just fine because mostly we won't meet this case in > >> rbd. But submit sync kv transaction isn't a low latency job I think, > >> maybe we could let WAL parallel with kv commiting?(yes, I really > >> concern the latency of one op :-) ) > > > > The WAL has to come after kv commit. But the fsync after the wal > > completion sucks, especially since we are always dispatching a single > > fsync at a time so it's kind of worst-case seek behavior. We could throw > > these into another parallel fsync queue so that the fs can batch them up, > > but I'm not sure we will enough parallelism. What would really be nice is > > a batch fsync syscall, but in leiu of that maybe we wait until we have a > > bunch of fsyncs pending and then throw them at the kernel together in a > > bunch of threads? Not sure. These aren't
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Haomai Wang wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> >> > > Hi Guys, >> >> > > >> >> > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that >> >> > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB >> >> > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks >> >> > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals >> >> > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good >> >> > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. >> >> > > >> >> > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the >> >> > > RBD >> >> > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down >> >> > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I >> >> > > suspect there's just something odd going on. >> >> > > >> >> > > Mark >> >> > >> >> > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those >> >> > interested: >> >> > >> >> > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ >> >> > >> >> > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about >> >> > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. >> >> > >> >> > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! >> >> > >> >> > Mark >> >> >> >> New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep >> >> small >> >> overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to >> >> the >> >> 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: >> >> >> >> write readrandw randr >> >> 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 >> >> 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 >> >> 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 >> > >> > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance >> > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled >> > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. >> > >> > The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore >> > open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very >> > noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: >> > >> > 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It >> > shouldn't, but we should confirm. >> > >> > 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to >> > see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the >> > store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the >> > effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from >> > a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data >> > read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? >> > I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here.. >> >> WOW, it's really a cool implementation beyond my original mind >> according to blueprint. Handler, overlay_map and data_map looks so >> flexible and make small io cheaper in theory. Now we only have 1 >> element in data_map and I'm not sure your goal about the future's >> usage. Although I have a unclearly idea that it could enhance the role >> of NewStore and make local filesystem just as a block space allocator. >> Let NewStore own a variable of FTL(File Translation Layer), so many >> cool features could be added. What's your idea about data_map? > > Exactly, that is one option. The other is that we'd treat the data_map > similar to overlay_map with a fixed or max extent size so that a large > partial overwrite will mostly go to a new file instead of doing the > slow WAL. > >> My concern currently still is WAL after fsync and kv commiting, maybe >> fsync process is just fine because mostly we won't meet this case in >> rbd. But submit sync kv transaction isn't a low latency job I think, >> maybe we could let WAL parallel with kv commiting?(yes, I really >> concern the latency of one op :-) ) > > The WAL has to come after kv commit. But the fsync after the wal > completion sucks, especially since we are always dispatching a single > fsync at a time so it's kind of worst-case seek behavior. We could throw > these into another parallel fsync queue so that the fs can batch them up, > but I'm not sure we will enough parallelism. What would really be nice is > a batch fsync syscall, but in leiu of that maybe we wait until we have a > bunch of fsyncs pending and then throw them at the kernel together in a > bunch of threads? Not sure. These aren't normally time sensitive > unless a read comes along (which is pretty rare), but they have to be done > for correctness. Couldn't we write both the log entry and the data in parallel and only acknowledge to the client once both commit? If we replay the log without the data we'll know it didn
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Haomai Wang wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > >> > > Hi Guys, > >> > > > >> > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that > >> > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB > >> > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks > >> > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals > >> > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good > >> > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. > >> > > > >> > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD > >> > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down > >> > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I > >> > > suspect there's just something odd going on. > >> > > > >> > > Mark > >> > > >> > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those > >> > interested: > >> > > >> > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ > >> > > >> > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about > >> > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. > >> > > >> > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! > >> > > >> > Mark > >> > >> New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small > >> overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to > >> the > >> 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: > >> > >> write readrandw randr > >> 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 > >> 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 > >> 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 > > > > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance > > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled > > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. > > > > The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore > > open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very > > noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: > > > > 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It > > shouldn't, but we should confirm. > > > > 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to > > see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the > > store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the > > effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from > > a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data > > read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? > > I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here.. > > WOW, it's really a cool implementation beyond my original mind > according to blueprint. Handler, overlay_map and data_map looks so > flexible and make small io cheaper in theory. Now we only have 1 > element in data_map and I'm not sure your goal about the future's > usage. Although I have a unclearly idea that it could enhance the role > of NewStore and make local filesystem just as a block space allocator. > Let NewStore own a variable of FTL(File Translation Layer), so many > cool features could be added. What's your idea about data_map? Exactly, that is one option. The other is that we'd treat the data_map similar to overlay_map with a fixed or max extent size so that a large partial overwrite will mostly go to a new file instead of doing the slow WAL. > My concern currently still is WAL after fsync and kv commiting, maybe > fsync process is just fine because mostly we won't meet this case in > rbd. But submit sync kv transaction isn't a low latency job I think, > maybe we could let WAL parallel with kv commiting?(yes, I really > concern the latency of one op :-) ) The WAL has to come after kv commit. But the fsync after the wal completion sucks, especially since we are always dispatching a single fsync at a time so it's kind of worst-case seek behavior. We could throw these into another parallel fsync queue so that the fs can batch them up, but I'm not sure we will enough parallelism. What would really be nice is a batch fsync syscall, but in leiu of that maybe we wait until we have a bunch of fsyncs pending and then throw them at the kernel together in a bunch of threads? Not sure. These aren't normally time sensitive unless a read comes along (which is pretty rare), but they have to be done for correctness. > Then from the actual rados write op, it will add setattr and > omap_setkeys ops. Current NewStore looks plays badly for setattr. It > always encode all xattrs(and other not so tiny fields) and write again > (Is this true?) though it could batch multi transaction's onode write > in short time. Yeah, this could be optimized so tha
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On 04/07/2015 09:58 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those interested: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! Mark New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: write readrandw randr 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It shouldn't, but we should confirm. 4KB objects via rados bench ok? 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here... So the above test process for RBD was basically: 1) create a configurable sized RBD volume (16GB in this case across 4 OSDs). 2) fill volume with 4MB writes to preallocate the blocks 3) repeat for each test: 3a) drop cache and sync 3b) Run the test 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: >> On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> > > Hi Guys, >> > > >> > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that >> > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB >> > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks >> > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals >> > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good >> > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. >> > > >> > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD >> > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down >> > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I >> > > suspect there's just something odd going on. >> > > >> > > Mark >> > >> > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those >> > interested: >> > >> > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ >> > >> > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about >> > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. >> > >> > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! >> > >> > Mark >> >> New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small >> overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the >> 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: >> >> write readrandw randr >> 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 >> 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 >> 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 > > What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance > with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled > (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. > > The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore > open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very > noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: > > 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It > shouldn't, but we should confirm. > > 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to > see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the > store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the > effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from > a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data > read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? > I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here.. WOW, it's really a cool implementation beyond my original mind according to blueprint. Handler, overlay_map and data_map looks so flexible and make small io cheaper in theory. Now we only have 1 element in data_map and I'm not sure your goal about the future's usage. Although I have a unclearly idea that it could enhance the role of NewStore and make local filesystem just as a block space allocator. Let NewStore own a variable of FTL(File Translation Layer), so many cool features could be added. What's your idea about data_map? My concern currently still is WAL after fsync and kv commiting, maybe fsync process is just fine because mostly we won't meet this case in rbd. But submit sync kv transaction isn't a low latency job I think, maybe we could let WAL parallel with kv commiting?(yes, I really concern the latency of one op :-) ) Then from the actual rados write op, it will add setattr and omap_setkeys ops. Current NewStore looks plays badly for setattr. It always encode all xattrs(and other not so tiny fields) and write again (Is this true?) though it could batch multi transaction's onode write in short time. NewStore also employ much more workload to KeyValueDB compared to FileStore, so maybe we need to consider the rich workload again compared before. FileStore only use leveldb just for write workload mainly so leveldb could fit into greatly, but currently overlay keys(read) and onode(read) will occur a main latency source in normal IO I think. The default kvdb like leveldb and rocksdb both plays not well for random read workload, it maybe will be problem. Looking for another kv db maybe a choice. And it still doesn't add journal codes for wal? Anyway, NewStore should cover more workloads compared to FileStore. Good job! > > 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 -- Best Regards, Wheat -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: > On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that > > > this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB > > > object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks > > > especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals > > > in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good > > > compared to filestore without SSD journals. > > > > > > small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD > > > case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down > > > and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I > > > suspect there's just something odd going on. > > > > > > Mark > > > > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those > > interested: > > > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ > > > > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about > > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. > > > > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! > > > > Mark > > New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small > overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the > 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: > > write readrandw randr > 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 > 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 > 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 What would be very interesting would be to see the 4KB performance with the defaults (newstore overlay max = 32) vs overlays disabled (newstore overlay max = 0) and see if/how much it is helping. The latest branch also has open-by-handle. It's on by default (newstore open by handle = true). I think for most workloads it won't be very noticeable... I think there are two questions we need to answer though: 1) Does it have any impact on a creation workload (say, 4kb objects). It shouldn't, but we should confirm. 2) Does it impact small object random reads with a cold cache. I think to see the effect we'll probably need to pile a ton of objects into the store, drop caches, and then do random reads. In the best case the effect will be small, but hopefully noticeable: we should go from a directory lookup (1+ seeks) + inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read, to inode lookup (1+ seek) + data read. So, 3 -> 2 seeks best case? I'm not really sure what XFS is doing under the covers here... 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
RE: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Hi mark, Really thanks for the data. Not sure if this PR will be merged soon (https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4266） Some known bugs around : `rados ls` will cause assert fault (which was fix by the PR) `rbd list` will also cause assert failure (because omap_iter hasn’t implemented yet). PG will not back to active+clean after restart OSD. (wip) The most performance related part seems about the newstore_fsync_threads and rocksdb tuning The small rados write performance degradation should related with fsync sice it's in creation mode that will not go through rocksdb. The RBD random write case should related with rocksdb since the compaction overhead(and also the WAL log there). Xiaoxi -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:53 AM To: Somnath Roy; ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results Hi Somnath, Sure. It's very easy: 1) install or build wip-newstore 2) Add the following to your ceph.conf file: enable experimental unrecoverable data corrupting features = newstore rocksdb osd objectstore = newstore Lots of interesting things to dig into! Mark On 04/07/2015 08:48 PM, Somnath Roy wrote: > Mark, > Could you please send the instruction out on how to use this new store? > > Thanks & Regards > Somnath > > -Original Message- > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 6:46 PM > To: ceph-devel > Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results > > > > On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that >>> this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB >>> object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks >>> especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD >>> journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really >>> good compared to filestore without SSD journals. >>> >>> small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the >>> RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to >>> sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad >>> enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. >>> >>> Mark >> >> Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for >> those >> interested: >> >> http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ >> >> Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was >> about >> 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. >> >> Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! >> >> Mark > > New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small > overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the > 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: > > write readrandw randr > 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 > 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 > 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 > > Seekwatcher graphs: > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150407/ > > Mark > -- > 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 > > > > PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is > intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the > reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that you have received this message in error and that any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify > the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy > any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or > electronically stored copies). > -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Hi Somnath, Sure. It's very easy: 1) install or build wip-newstore 2) Add the following to your ceph.conf file: enable experimental unrecoverable data corrupting features = newstore rocksdb osd objectstore = newstore Lots of interesting things to dig into! Mark On 04/07/2015 08:48 PM, Somnath Roy wrote: Mark, Could you please send the instruction out on how to use this new store? Thanks & Regards Somnath -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 6:46 PM To: ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those interested: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! Mark New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: write readrandw randr 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 Seekwatcher graphs: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150407/ Mark -- 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 PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies). -- 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
RE: Initial newstore vs filestore results
Mark, Could you please send the instruction out on how to use this new store? Thanks & Regards Somnath -Original Message- From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 6:46 PM To: ceph-devel Subject: Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that >> this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB >> object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks >> especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD >> journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really >> good compared to filestore without SSD journals. >> >> small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the >> RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit >> down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough >> that I suspect there's just something odd going on. >> >> Mark > > Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for > those > interested: > > http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ > > Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was > about > 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. > > Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! > > Mark New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: write readrandw randr 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 Seekwatcher graphs: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150407/ Mark -- 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 PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies).
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On 04/07/2015 02:16 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those interested: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! Mark New fio/librbd results using Sage's latest code that attempts to keep small overwrite extents in the db. This is 4 OSD so not directly comparable to the 36 OSD tests above, but does include seekwatcher graphs. Results in MB/s: write readrandw randr 4MB 57.9319.6 55.2285.9 128KB 2.5 230.6 2.4 125.4 4KB 0.4655.65 1.113.56 Seekwatcher graphs: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/20150407/ Mark -- 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
Re: Initial newstore vs filestore results
On 04/07/2015 09:57 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark Seekwatcher/blktrace graphs of a 4 OSD cluster using newstore for those interested: http://nhm.ceph.com/newstore/ Interestingly small object write/read performance with 4 OSDs was about 1/3-1/4 the speed of the same cluster with 36 OSDs. Note: Thanks Dan for fixing the directory column width! Mark -- 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
Initial newstore vs filestore results
Hi Guys, I ran some quick tests on Sage's newstore branch. So far given that this is a prototype, things are looking pretty good imho. The 4MB object rados bench read/write and small read performance looks especially good. Keep in mind that this is not using the SSD journals in any way, so 640MB/s sequential writes is actually really good compared to filestore without SSD journals. small write performance appears to be fairly bad, especially in the RBD case where it's small writes to larger objects. I'm going to sit down and see if I can figure out what's going on. It's bad enough that I suspect there's just something odd going on. Mark newstore_vs_filestore.ods Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
