I want to unsubscribe the general mailing list for Ceph users. Sincerely Yours, ------------------------------------------ Ivan E_: chenhui0228@gmail.com A_: Wuhan, Hubei, China ------------------------------------------ <ceph-users-request@ceph.io> 于2023年6月28日周三 01:54写道：
Send ceph-users mailing list submissions to ceph-users@ceph.io
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ceph-users-request@ceph.io
You can reach the person managing the list at ceph-users-owner@ceph.io
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ceph-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ceph orch host label rm : does not update label removal (Adiga, Anantha) 2. Re: RBD with PWL cache shows poor performance compared to cache device (Josh Baergen) 3. Re: RBD with PWL cache shows poor performance compared to cache device (Matthew Booth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:04:05 +0000 From: "Adiga, Anantha" <anantha.adiga@intel.com> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: ceph orch host label rm : does not update label removal To: "Adiga, Anantha" <anantha.adiga@intel.com>, "ceph-users@ceph.io" <ceph-users@ceph.io> Message-ID: <CY5PR11MB62118438F851BE59AC91F85BF627A@CY5PR11MB6211.namp rd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello,
This issue is resolved.
The syntax of providing the labels was not correct.
-----Original Message----- From: Adiga, Anantha <anantha.adiga@intel.com> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 1:08 PM To: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] ceph orch host label rm : does not update label removal
Hi ,
Not sure if the lables are really removed or the update is not working? This was taken as a single label: mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph
root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host ls HOST ADDR LABELS STATUS fl31ca104ja0201 XX.XX.XXX.139 ceph clients mdss mgrs monitoring mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0202 XX.XX.XXX.140 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0203 XX.XX.XXX.141 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0302 XX.XX.XXX.5 _admin mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph 4 hosts in cluster
root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host label rm fl31ca104ja0302 mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph Removed label mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph from host fl31ca104ja0302
root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host ls HOST ADDR LABELS STATUS fl31ca104ja0201 XX.XX.XXX.139 ceph clients mdss mgrs monitoring mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0202 XX.XX.XXX.140 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0203 XX.XX.XXX.141 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0302 XX.XX.XXX.5 _admin 4 hosts in cluster
Thank you, Anantha
root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host ls HOST ADDR LABELS STATUS fl31ca104ja0201 XX.XX.XXX.139 ceph clients mdss mgrs monitoring mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0202 XX.XX.XXX.140 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0203 XX.XX.XXX.141 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0302 XX.XX.XXX.5 _admin mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph 4 hosts in cluster root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host label rm fl31ca104ja0302 rgws.ceph Removed label rgws.ceph from host fl31ca104ja0302 root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host ls HOST ADDR LABELS STATUS fl31ca104ja0201 XX.XX.XXX.139 ceph clients mdss mgrs monitoring mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0202 XX.XX.XXX.140 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0203 XX.XX.XXX.141 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0302 XX.XX.XXX.5 _admin mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph 4 hosts in cluster root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host label rm fl31ca104ja0302 rgws.ceph --force Removed label rgws.ceph from host fl31ca104ja0302 root@fl31ca104ja0201:/# ceph orch host ls HOST ADDR LABELS STATUS fl31ca104ja0201 XX.XX.XXX.139 ceph clients mdss mgrs monitoring mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0202 XX.XX.XXX.140 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0203 XX.XX.XXX.141 ceph clients mdss mgrs mons osds rgws fl31ca104ja0302 XX.XX.XXX.5 _admin mgrs,ceph osd,rgws.ceph 4 hosts in cluster
Regards, Anantha _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:20:01 -0600 From: Josh Baergen <jbaergen@digitalocean.com> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: RBD with PWL cache shows poor performance compared to cache device To: Matthew Booth <mbooth@redhat.com> Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Message-ID: < CA+5zLQ+R4Yq+4F4GwTZKqz4VYj5sN7gniSf3X5wnsk06F_UFtQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Matthew,
We've done a limited amount of work on characterizing the pwl and I think it suffers the classic problem of some writeback caches in that, once the cache is saturated, it's actually worse than just being in writethrough. IIRC the pwl does try to preserve write ordering (unlike the other writeback/writearound modes) which limits it in the concurrency it can issue to the backend, which means that even an iodepth=1 test can saturate the pwl, assuming the backend latency is higher than the pwl latency.
I _think_ that if you were able to devise a burst test with bursts smaller than the pwl capacity and gaps in between large enough for the cache to flush, or if you were to ratelimit I/Os to the pwl, that you should see closer to the lower latencies that you would expect.
Josh
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:04 AM Matthew Booth <mbooth@redhat.com> wrote:
** TL;DR
In testing, the write latency performance of a PWL-cache backed RBD disk was 2 orders of magnitude worse than the disk holding the PWL cache.
** Summary
I was hoping that PWL cache might be a good solution to the problem of write latency requirements of etcd when running a kubernetes control plane on ceph. Etcd is extremely write latency sensitive and becomes unstable if write latency is too high. The etcd workload can be characterised by very small (~4k) writes with a queue depth of 1. Throughput, even on a busy system, is normally very low. As etcd is distributed and can safely handle the loss of un-flushed data from a single node, a local ssd PWL cache for etcd looked like an ideal solution.
My expectation was that adding a PWL cache on a local SSD to an RBD-backed would improve write latency to something approaching the write latency performance of the local SSD. However, in my testing adding a PWL cache to an rbd-backed VM increased write latency by approximately 4x over not using a PWL cache. This was over 100x more than the write latency performance of the underlying SSD.
My expectation was based on the documentation here: https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/rbd/rbd-persistent-write-log-cache/
“The cache provides two different persistence modes. In persistent-on-write mode, the writes are completed only when they are persisted to the cache device and will be readable after a crash. In persistent-on-flush mode, the writes are completed as soon as it no longer needs the caller’s data buffer to complete the writes, but does not guarantee that writes will be readable after a crash. The data is persisted to the cache device when a flush request is received.”
** Method
2 systems, 1 running single-node Ceph Quincy (17.2.6), the other running libvirt and mounting a VM’s disk with librbd (also 17.2.6) from the first node.
All performance testing is from the libvirt system. I tested write latency performance:
* Inside the VM without a PWL cache * Of the PWL device directly from the host (direct to filesystem, no VM) * Inside the VM with a PWL cache
I am testing with fio. Specifically I am running a containerised test, executed with: podman run --volume .:/var/lib/etcd:Z quay.io/openshift-scale/etcd-perf
This container runs: fio --rw=write --ioengine=sync --fdatasync=1 --directory=/var/lib/etcd --size=100m --bs=8000 --name=etcd_perf --output-format=json --runtime=60 --time_based=1
And extracts sync.lat_ns.percentile["99.000000"]
** Results
All results were stable across multiple runs within a small margin of error.
* rbd no cache: 1417216 ns * pwl cache device: 44288 ns * rbd with pwl cache: 5210112 ns
Note that by adding a PWL cache we increase write latency by approximately 4x, which is more than 100x than the underlying device.
** Hardware
2 x Dell R640s, each with Xeon Silver 4216 CPU @ 2.10GHz and 192G RAM Storage under test: 2 x SAMSUNG MZ7KH480HAHQ0D3 SSDs attached to PERC H730P Mini (Embedded)
OS installed on rotational disks
N.B. Linux incorrectly detects these disks as rotational, which I assume relates to weird behaviour by the PERC controller. I remembered to manually correct this on the ‘client’ machine for the PWL cache, but at OSD configuration time ceph would have detected them as rotational. They are not rotational.
** Ceph Configuration
CentOS Stream 9
# ceph version ceph version 17.2.6 (d7ff0d10654d2280e08f1ab989c7cdf3064446a5) quincy (stable)
Single node installation with cephadm. 2 OSDs, one on each SSD. 1 pool with size 2
** Client Configuration
Fedora 38 Librbd1-17.2.6-3.fc38.x86_64
PWL cache is XFS filesystem with 4k block size, matching the underlying device. The filesystem uses the whole block device. There is no other load on the system.
** RBD Configuration
# rbd config image list libvirt-pool/pwl-test | grep cache rbd_cache true config rbd_cache_block_writes_upfront false config rbd_cache_max_dirty 25165824 config rbd_cache_max_dirty_age 1.000000 config rbd_cache_max_dirty_object 0 config rbd_cache_policy writeback pool rbd_cache_size 33554432 config rbd_cache_target_dirty 16777216 config rbd_cache_writethrough_until_flush true pool rbd_parent_cache_enabled false config rbd_persistent_cache_mode ssd pool rbd_persistent_cache_path /var/lib/libvirt/images/pwl pool rbd_persistent_cache_size 1073741824 config rbd_plugins pwl_cache pool
# rbd status libvirt-pool/pwl-test Watchers: watcher=10.1.240.27:0/1406459716 client.14475 cookie=140282423200720 Persistent cache state: host: dell-r640-050 path: /var/lib/libvirt/images/pwl/rbd-pwl.libvirt-pool.37e947fd216b.pool size: 1 GiB mode: ssd stats_timestamp: Mon Jun 26 11:29:21 2023 present: true empty: false clean: true allocated: 180 MiB cached: 135 MiB dirty: 0 B free: 844 MiB hits_full: 1 / 0% hits_partial: 3 / 0% misses: 21952 hit_bytes: 6 KiB / 0% miss_bytes: 349 MiB -- Matthew Booth _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:50:07 +0100 From: Matthew Booth <mbooth@redhat.com> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: RBD with PWL cache shows poor performance compared to cache device To: Josh Baergen <jbaergen@digitalocean.com> Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Message-ID: < CAEkQehcGq-88heq3UN8tsWsTyOfTcm1122Ffxy7PEhXF7Hj1mA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 18:20, Josh Baergen <jbaergen@digitalocean.com> wrote:
Hi Matthew,
We've done a limited amount of work on characterizing the pwl and I
think it suffers the classic problem of some writeback caches in that, once the cache is saturated, it's actually worse than just being in writethrough. IIRC the pwl does try to preserve write ordering (unlike the other writeback/writearound modes) which limits it in the concurrency it can issue to the backend, which means that even an iodepth=1 test can saturate the pwl, assuming the backend latency is higher than the pwl latency.
What do you mean by saturated here? FWIW I was using the default cache size of 1G and each test run only wrote ~100MB of data, so I don't think I ever filled the cache, even with multiple runs.
I _think_ that if you were able to devise a burst test with bursts smaller than the pwl capacity and gaps in between large enough for the cache to flush, or if you were to ratelimit I/Os to the pwl, that you should see closer to the lower latencies that you would expect.
My goal is to characterise the requirements of etcd. Unfortunately I don't think changing the test would do that. Incidentally, note that the total bandwidth of an extremely busy etcd is usually very low.
From memory, the etcd write rate for a system we were debugging whose etcd was occasionally falling over due to load was only about 5MiB/s. It's all about write latency of really small writes, not bandwidth.
Matt
Josh
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:04 AM Matthew Booth <mbooth@redhat.com> wrote:
** TL;DR
In testing, the write latency performance of a PWL-cache backed RBD disk was 2 orders of magnitude worse than the disk holding the PWL cache.
** Summary
I was hoping that PWL cache might be a good solution to the problem of write latency requirements of etcd when running a kubernetes control plane on ceph. Etcd is extremely write latency sensitive and becomes unstable if write latency is too high. The etcd workload can be characterised by very small (~4k) writes with a queue depth of 1. Throughput, even on a busy system, is normally very low. As etcd is distributed and can safely handle the loss of un-flushed data from a single node, a local ssd PWL cache for etcd looked like an ideal solution.
My expectation was that adding a PWL cache on a local SSD to an RBD-backed would improve write latency to something approaching the write latency performance of the local SSD. However, in my testing adding a PWL cache to an rbd-backed VM increased write latency by approximately 4x over not using a PWL cache. This was over 100x more than the write latency performance of the underlying SSD.
My expectation was based on the documentation here: https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/rbd/rbd-persistent-write-log-cache/
“The cache provides two different persistence modes. In persistent-on-write mode, the writes are completed only when they are persisted to the cache device and will be readable after a crash. In persistent-on-flush mode, the writes are completed as soon as it no longer needs the caller’s data buffer to complete the writes, but does not guarantee that writes will be readable after a crash. The data is persisted to the cache device when a flush request is received.”
** Method
2 systems, 1 running single-node Ceph Quincy (17.2.6), the other running libvirt and mounting a VM’s disk with librbd (also 17.2.6) from the first node.
All performance testing is from the libvirt system. I tested write latency performance:
* Inside the VM without a PWL cache * Of the PWL device directly from the host (direct to filesystem, no VM) * Inside the VM with a PWL cache
I am testing with fio. Specifically I am running a containerised test, executed with: podman run --volume .:/var/lib/etcd:Z
This container runs: fio --rw=write --ioengine=sync --fdatasync=1 --directory=/var/lib/etcd --size=100m --bs=8000 --name=etcd_perf --output-format=json --runtime=60 --time_based=1
And extracts sync.lat_ns.percentile["99.000000"]
** Results
All results were stable across multiple runs within a small margin of
error.
* rbd no cache: 1417216 ns * pwl cache device: 44288 ns * rbd with pwl cache: 5210112 ns
Note that by adding a PWL cache we increase write latency by approximately 4x, which is more than 100x than the underlying device.
** Hardware
2 x Dell R640s, each with Xeon Silver 4216 CPU @ 2.10GHz and 192G RAM Storage under test: 2 x SAMSUNG MZ7KH480HAHQ0D3 SSDs attached to PERC H730P Mini (Embedded)
OS installed on rotational disks
N.B. Linux incorrectly detects these disks as rotational, which I assume relates to weird behaviour by the PERC controller. I remembered to manually correct this on the ‘client’ machine for the PWL cache, but at OSD configuration time ceph would have detected them as rotational. They are not rotational.
** Ceph Configuration
CentOS Stream 9
# ceph version ceph version 17.2.6 (d7ff0d10654d2280e08f1ab989c7cdf3064446a5) quincy
(stable)
Single node installation with cephadm. 2 OSDs, one on each SSD. 1 pool with size 2
** Client Configuration
Fedora 38 Librbd1-17.2.6-3.fc38.x86_64
PWL cache is XFS filesystem with 4k block size, matching the underlying device. The filesystem uses the whole block device. There is no other load on the system.
** RBD Configuration
# rbd config image list libvirt-pool/pwl-test | grep cache rbd_cache true
config
rbd_cache_block_writes_upfront false config rbd_cache_max_dirty 25165824 config rbd_cache_max_dirty_age 1.000000 config rbd_cache_max_dirty_object 0 config rbd_cache_policy writeback
rbd_cache_size 33554432 config rbd_cache_target_dirty 16777216 config rbd_cache_writethrough_until_flush true
rbd_parent_cache_enabled false config rbd_persistent_cache_mode ssd
rbd_persistent_cache_path /var/lib/libvirt/images/pwl pool rbd_persistent_cache_size 1073741824 config rbd_plugins pwl_cache
quay.io/openshift-scale/etcd-perf pool pool pool pool
# rbd status libvirt-pool/pwl-test Watchers: watcher=10.1.240.27:0/1406459716 client.14475
cookie=140282423200720
Persistent cache state: host: dell-r640-050 path: /var/lib/libvirt/images/pwl/rbd-pwl.libvirt-pool.37e947fd216b.pool size: 1 GiB mode: ssd stats_timestamp: Mon Jun 26 11:29:21 2023 present: true empty: false clean: true allocated: 180 MiB cached: 135 MiB dirty: 0 B free: 844 MiB hits_full: 1 / 0% hits_partial: 3 / 0% misses: 21952 hit_bytes: 6 KiB / 0% miss_bytes: 349 MiB -- Matthew Booth _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- Matthew Booth
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
------------------------------
End of ceph-users Digest, Vol 108, Issue 88 *******************************************