29 Apr
2021
29 Apr
'21
1:52 p.m.
Hello folks,
I am new to ceph and at the moment I am doing some performance tests with a 4 node
ceph-cluster (pacific, 16.2.1).
Node hardware (4 identical nodes):
* DELL 3620 workstation
* Intel Quad-Core i7-6700(a)3.4 GHz
* 8 GB RAM
* Debian Buster (base system, installed a dedicated on Patriot Burst 120 GB SATA-SSD)
* HP 530SPF+ 10 GBit dual-port NIC (tested with iperf to 9.4 GBit/s from node to
node)
* 1 x Kingston KC2500 M2 NVMe PCIe SSD (500 GB, NO power loss protection !)
* 3 x Seagate Barracuda SATA disk drives (7200 rpm, 500 GB)
After bootstrapping a containerized (docker) ceph-cluster, I did some performance tests on
the NVMe storage by creating a storage pool called „ssdpool“, consisting of 4 OSDs per
(one) NVMe device (per node). A first write-performance test yields
=============
root@ceph1:~# rados bench -p ssdpool 10 write -b 4M -t 16 --no-cleanup
hints = 1
Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size 4194304 for up to 10
seconds or 0 objects
Object prefix: benchmark_data_ceph1_78
sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg lat(s)
0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
1 16 30 14 55.997 56 0.0209977 0.493427
2 16 53 37 73.9903 92 0.0264305 0.692179
3 16 76 60 79.9871 92 0.559505 0.664204
4 16 99 83 82.9879 92 0.609332 0.721016
5 16 116 100 79.9889 68 0.686093 0.698084
6 16 132 116 77.3224 64 1.19715 0.731808
7 16 153 137 78.2741 84 0.622646 0.755812
8 16 171 155 77.486 72 0.25409 0.764022
9 16 192 176 78.2076 84 0.968321 0.775292
10 16 214 198 79.1856 88 0.401339 0.766764
11 1 214 213 77.4408 60 0.969693 0.784002
Total time run: 11.0698
Total writes made: 214
Write size: 4194304
Object size: 4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec): 77.3272
Stddev Bandwidth: 13.7722
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 92
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 56
Average IOPS: 19
Stddev IOPS: 3.44304
Max IOPS: 23
Min IOPS: 14
Average Latency(s): 0.785372
Stddev Latency(s): 0.49011
Max latency(s): 2.16532
Min latency(s): 0.0144995
=============
... and I think that 80 MB/s throughput is a very poor result in conjunction with NVMe
devices and 10 GBit nics.
A bare write-test (with fsync=0 option) of the NVMe drives yields a write throughput of
round about 800 MB/s per device ... the second test (with fsync=1) drops performance to
200 MB/s.
=============
root@ceph1:/home/mschmid# fio --rw=randwrite --name=IOPS-write --bs=1024k --direct=1
--filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --numjobs=4 --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 --refill_buffers
--group_reporting --runtime=30 --time_based --fsync=0
IOPS-write: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (T)
1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32...
fio-3.12
Starting 4 processes
Jobs: 4 (f=4): [w(4)][100.0%][w=723MiB/s][w=722 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
IOPS-write: (groupid=0, jobs=4): err= 0: pid=31585: Thu Apr 29 15:15:03 2021
write: IOPS=740, BW=740MiB/s (776MB/s)(21.8GiB/30206msec); 0 zone resets
slat (usec): min=16, max=810, avg=106.48, stdev=30.48
clat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.09, stdev=120.18
lat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.19, stdev=120.18
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 32], 5.00th=[ 48], 10.00th=[ 53], 20.00th=[ 63],
| 30.00th=[ 115], 40.00th=[ 161], 50.00th=[ 169], 60.00th=[ 178],
| 70.00th=[ 190], 80.00th=[ 220], 90.00th=[ 264], 95.00th=[ 368],
| 99.00th=[ 667], 99.50th=[ 751], 99.90th=[ 894], 99.95th=[ 986],
| 99.99th=[ 1036]
bw ( KiB/s): min=22528, max=639744, per=25.02%, avg=189649.94, stdev=113845.69,
samples=240
iops : min= 22, max= 624, avg=185.11, stdev=111.18, samples=240
lat (msec) : 10=0.01%, 20=0.19%, 50=6.43%, 100=20.29%, 250=61.52%
lat (msec) : 500=8.21%, 750=2.85%, 1000=0.47%
cpu : usr=11.87%, sys=2.05%, ctx=13141, majf=0, minf=45
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.3%, 32=99.4%, >=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued rwts: total=0,22359,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: bw=740MiB/s (776MB/s), 740MiB/s-740MiB/s (776MB/s-776MB/s), io=21.8GiB (23.4GB),
run=30206-30206msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nvme0n1: ios=0/89150, merge=0/0, ticks=0/15065724, in_queue=15118720, util=99.75%
=============
Furthermore an IOPS-test on the NVMe device with block-size 4k shows round about 1000 IOPS
with fsnyc=1 and 35000 IOPS with fsync=0.
To my question: As CPU- and network-load seem to be low during my tests, I would like to
know, which bottleneck can cause such a huge performance drop between the bare
hardware-performance of the nvme-drives and the write-speeds in the rados benchmark. Could
the missing power loss protection (fsync=1) be the problem, or what throughput should one
expect to be normal in such a setup?
Thanks for every advice!
Best regards,
Michael
29 Apr
29 Apr
8:15 p.m.
Are you sure your ssd pool is only having ssd's and not maybe some hdd's? In past
versions of ceph you had to modify crush rules to separate ssd and hdd classes. Could be
this is not necessary any more in pacific.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schmid, Michael <m.schmid(a)fosbos-rosenheim.de>
Sent: 29 April 2021 15:52
To: ceph-users(a)ceph.io
Subject: [ceph-users] Performance questions - 4 node (commodity) cluster
- what to expect (and what not ;-)
Hello folks,
I am new to ceph and at the moment I am doing some performance tests
with a 4 node ceph-cluster (pacific, 16.2.1).
Node hardware (4 identical nodes):
* DELL 3620 workstation
* Intel Quad-Core i7-6700(a)3.4 GHz
* 8 GB RAM
* Debian Buster (base system, installed a dedicated on Patriot Burst
120 GB SATA-SSD)
* HP 530SPF+ 10 GBit dual-port NIC (tested with iperf to 9.4 GBit/s
from node to node)
* 1 x Kingston KC2500 M2 NVMe PCIe SSD (500 GB, NO power loss
protection !)
* 3 x Seagate Barracuda SATA disk drives (7200 rpm, 500 GB)
After bootstrapping a containerized (docker) ceph-cluster, I did some
performance tests on the NVMe storage by creating a storage pool called
„ssdpool“, consisting of 4 OSDs per (one) NVMe device (per node). A
first write-performance test yields
=============
root@ceph1:~# rados bench -p ssdpool 10 write -b 4M -t 16 --no-cleanup
hints = 1
Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size
4194304 for up to 10 seconds or 0 objects
Object prefix: benchmark_data_ceph1_78
sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg
lat(s)
0 0 0 0 0 0 -
0
1 16 30 14 55.997 56 0.0209977
0.493427
2 16 53 37 73.9903 92 0.0264305
0.692179
3 16 76 60 79.9871 92 0.559505
0.664204
4 16 99 83 82.9879 92 0.609332
0.721016
5 16 116 100 79.9889 68 0.686093
0.698084
6 16 132 116 77.3224 64 1.19715
0.731808
7 16 153 137 78.2741 84 0.622646
0.755812
8 16 171 155 77.486 72 0.25409
0.764022
9 16 192 176 78.2076 84 0.968321
0.775292
10 16 214 198 79.1856 88 0.401339
0.766764
11 1 214 213 77.4408 60 0.969693
0.784002
Total time run: 11.0698
Total writes made: 214
Write size: 4194304
Object size: 4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec): 77.3272
Stddev Bandwidth: 13.7722
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 92
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 56
Average IOPS: 19
Stddev IOPS: 3.44304
Max IOPS: 23
Min IOPS: 14
Average Latency(s): 0.785372
Stddev Latency(s): 0.49011
Max latency(s): 2.16532
Min latency(s): 0.0144995
=============
... and I think that 80 MB/s throughput is a very poor result in
conjunction with NVMe devices and 10 GBit nics.
A bare write-test (with fsync=0 option) of the NVMe drives yields a
write throughput of round about 800 MB/s per device ... the second test
(with fsync=1) drops performance to 200 MB/s.
=============
root@ceph1:/home/mschmid# fio --rw=randwrite --name=IOPS-write --
bs=1024k --direct=1 --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --numjobs=4 --
ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 --refill_buffers --group_reporting --
runtime=30 --time_based --fsync=0
IOPS-write: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-
1024KiB, (T) 1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32...
fio-3.12
Starting 4 processes
Jobs: 4 (f=4): [w(4)][100.0%][w=723MiB/s][w=722 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
IOPS-write: (groupid=0, jobs=4): err= 0: pid=31585: Thu Apr 29 15:15:03
2021
write: IOPS=740, BW=740MiB/s (776MB/s)(21.8GiB/30206msec); 0 zone
resets
slat (usec): min=16, max=810, avg=106.48, stdev=30.48
clat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.09, stdev=120.18
lat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.19, stdev=120.18
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 32], 5.00th=[ 48], 10.00th=[ 53], 20.00th=[
63],
| 30.00th=[ 115], 40.00th=[ 161], 50.00th=[ 169], 60.00th=[
178],
| 70.00th=[ 190], 80.00th=[ 220], 90.00th=[ 264], 95.00th=[
368],
| 99.00th=[ 667], 99.50th=[ 751], 99.90th=[ 894], 99.95th=[
986],
| 99.99th=[ 1036]
bw ( KiB/s): min=22528, max=639744, per=25.02%, avg=189649.94,
stdev=113845.69, samples=240
iops : min= 22, max= 624, avg=185.11, stdev=111.18,
samples=240
lat (msec) : 10=0.01%, 20=0.19%, 50=6.43%, 100=20.29%, 250=61.52%
lat (msec) : 500=8.21%, 750=2.85%, 1000=0.47%
cpu : usr=11.87%, sys=2.05%, ctx=13141, majf=0, minf=45
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.3%, 32=99.4%,
=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
=64=0.0%
issued rwts: total=0,22359,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: bw=740MiB/s (776MB/s), 740MiB/s-740MiB/s (776MB/s-776MB/s),
io=21.8GiB (23.4GB), run=30206-30206msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nvme0n1: ios=0/89150, merge=0/0, ticks=0/15065724, in_queue=15118720,
util=99.75%
=============
Furthermore an IOPS-test on the NVMe device with block-size 4k shows
round about 1000 IOPS with fsnyc=1 and 35000 IOPS with fsync=0.
To my question: As CPU- and network-load seem to be low during my tests,
I would like to know, which bottleneck can cause such a huge performance
drop between the bare hardware-performance of the nvme-drives and the
write-speeds in the rados benchmark. Could the missing power loss
protection (fsync=1) be the problem, or what throughput should one
expect to be normal in such a setup?
Thanks for every advice!
Best regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
30 Apr
30 Apr
5:44 a.m.
Hello,
i did the necessary modifications to the crush ruleset and checked the osd to pool
mapping.
Best regards,
Michael
Schöne Grüße,
Michael Schmid
__________________________________________
Berufliche Oberschule Rosenheim
Westerndorfer Straße 45
D - 83024 Rosenheim
fon: +49 (0) 80 31 / 2843 - 422
fax: +49 (0) 80 31 / 2843 - 435
mail: m.schmid(a)fosbos-rosenheim.de
web: https://www.fosbos-rosenheim.de
__________________________________________
P.S.: Diese Nachricht wurde von einem mobilen Gerät per Spracheingabe gesendet. Ich bitte
daher um Entschuldigung für etwaige Fehler.
________________________________
Von: Marc <Marc(a)f1-outsourcing.eu>
Gesendet: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:15:20 PM
An: Schmid, Michael <m.schmid(a)fosbos-rosenheim.de>de>; ceph-users(a)ceph.io
<ceph-users(a)ceph.io>
Betreff: RE: Performance questions - 4 node (commodity) cluster - what to expect (and what
not ;-)
Are you sure your ssd pool is only having ssd's and not maybe some hdd's? In past
versions of ceph you had to modify crush rules to separate ssd and hdd classes. Could be
this is not necessary any more in pacific.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schmid, Michael <m.schmid(a)fosbos-rosenheim.de>
Sent: 29 April 2021 15:52
To: ceph-users(a)ceph.io
Subject: [ceph-users] Performance questions - 4 node (commodity) cluster
- what to expect (and what not ;-)
Hello folks,
I am new to ceph and at the moment I am doing some performance tests
with a 4 node ceph-cluster (pacific, 16.2.1).
Node hardware (4 identical nodes):
* DELL 3620 workstation
* Intel Quad-Core i7-6700(a)3.4 GHz
* 8 GB RAM
* Debian Buster (base system, installed a dedicated on Patriot Burst
120 GB SATA-SSD)
* HP 530SPF+ 10 GBit dual-port NIC (tested with iperf to 9.4 GBit/s
from node to node)
* 1 x Kingston KC2500 M2 NVMe PCIe SSD (500 GB, NO power loss
protection !)
* 3 x Seagate Barracuda SATA disk drives (7200 rpm, 500 GB)
After bootstrapping a containerized (docker) ceph-cluster, I did some
performance tests on the NVMe storage by creating a storage pool called
„ssdpool“, consisting of 4 OSDs per (one) NVMe device (per node). A
first write-performance test yields
=============
root@ceph1:~# rados bench -p ssdpool 10 write -b 4M -t 16 --no-cleanup
hints = 1
Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size
4194304 for up to 10 seconds or 0 objects
Object prefix: benchmark_data_ceph1_78
sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg
lat(s)
0 0 0 0 0 0 -
0
1 16 30 14 55.997 56 0.0209977
0.493427
2 16 53 37 73.9903 92 0.0264305
0.692179
3 16 76 60 79.9871 92 0.559505
0.664204
4 16 99 83 82.9879 92 0.609332
0.721016
5 16 116 100 79.9889 68 0.686093
0.698084
6 16 132 116 77.3224 64 1.19715
0.731808
7 16 153 137 78.2741 84 0.622646
0.755812
8 16 171 155 77.486 72 0.25409
0.764022
9 16 192 176 78.2076 84 0.968321
0.775292
10 16 214 198 79.1856 88 0.401339
0.766764
11 1 214 213 77.4408 60 0.969693
0.784002
Total time run: 11.0698
Total writes made: 214
Write size: 4194304
Object size: 4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec): 77.3272
Stddev Bandwidth: 13.7722
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 92
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 56
Average IOPS: 19
Stddev IOPS: 3.44304
Max IOPS: 23
Min IOPS: 14
Average Latency(s): 0.785372
Stddev Latency(s): 0.49011
Max latency(s): 2.16532
Min latency(s): 0.0144995
=============
... and I think that 80 MB/s throughput is a very poor result in
conjunction with NVMe devices and 10 GBit nics.
A bare write-test (with fsync=0 option) of the NVMe drives yields a
write throughput of round about 800 MB/s per device ... the second test
(with fsync=1) drops performance to 200 MB/s.
=============
root@ceph1:/home/mschmid# fio --rw=randwrite --name=IOPS-write --
bs=1024k --direct=1 --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --numjobs=4 --
ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 --refill_buffers --group_reporting --
runtime=30 --time_based --fsync=0
IOPS-write: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-
1024KiB, (T) 1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32...
fio-3.12
Starting 4 processes
Jobs: 4 (f=4): [w(4)][100.0%][w=723MiB/s][w=722 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
IOPS-write: (groupid=0, jobs=4): err= 0: pid=31585: Thu Apr 29 15:15:03
2021
write: IOPS=740, BW=740MiB/s (776MB/s)(21.8GiB/30206msec); 0 zone
resets
slat (usec): min=16, max=810, avg=106.48, stdev=30.48
clat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.09, stdev=120.18
lat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.19, stdev=120.18
clat percentiles (msec):
| 1.00th=[ 32], 5.00th=[ 48], 10.00th=[ 53], 20.00th=[
63],
| 30.00th=[ 115], 40.00th=[ 161], 50.00th=[ 169], 60.00th=[
178],
| 70.00th=[ 190], 80.00th=[ 220], 90.00th=[ 264], 95.00th=[
368],
| 99.00th=[ 667], 99.50th=[ 751], 99.90th=[ 894], 99.95th=[
986],
| 99.99th=[ 1036]
bw ( KiB/s): min=22528, max=639744, per=25.02%, avg=189649.94,
stdev=113845.69, samples=240
iops : min= 22, max= 624, avg=185.11, stdev=111.18,
samples=240
lat (msec) : 10=0.01%, 20=0.19%, 50=6.43%, 100=20.29%, 250=61.52%
lat (msec) : 500=8.21%, 750=2.85%, 1000=0.47%
cpu : usr=11.87%, sys=2.05%, ctx=13141, majf=0, minf=45
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.3%, 32=99.4%,
=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%,
8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%,
8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%,
=64=0.0%
issued rwts:
total=0,22359,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: bw=740MiB/s (776MB/s), 740MiB/s-740MiB/s (776MB/s-776MB/s),
io=21.8GiB (23.4GB), run=30206-30206msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nvme0n1: ios=0/89150, merge=0/0, ticks=0/15065724, in_queue=15118720,
util=99.75%
=============
Furthermore an IOPS-test on the NVMe device with block-size 4k shows
round about 1000 IOPS with fsnyc=1 and 35000 IOPS with fsync=0.
To my question: As CPU- and network-load seem to be low during my tests,
I would like to know, which bottleneck can cause such a huge performance
drop between the bare hardware-performance of the nvme-drives and the
write-speeds in the rados benchmark. Could the missing power loss
protection (fsync=1) be the problem, or what throughput should one
expect to be normal in such a setup?
Thanks for every advice!
Best regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io 
1:04 p.m.
Can you collect the output of this command on all 4 servers while your
test is running:
iostat -mtxy 1
This should show how busy the CPUs are as well as how busy each drive is.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:52 AM Schmid, Michael
<m.schmid(a)fosbos-rosenheim.de> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I am new to ceph and at the moment I am doing some performance tests with a 4 node
ceph-cluster (pacific, 16.2.1).
>
> Node hardware (4 identical nodes):
>
> * DELL 3620 workstation
> * Intel Quad-Core i7-6700(a)3.4 GHz
> * 8 GB RAM
> * Debian Buster (base system, installed a dedicated on Patriot Burst 120 GB
SATA-SSD)
> * HP 530SPF+ 10 GBit dual-port NIC (tested with iperf to 9.4 GBit/s from node to
node)
> * 1 x Kingston KC2500 M2 NVMe PCIe SSD (500 GB, NO power loss protection !)
> * 3 x Seagate Barracuda SATA disk drives (7200 rpm, 500 GB)
>
> After bootstrapping a containerized (docker) ceph-cluster, I did some performance
tests on the NVMe storage by creating a storage pool called „ssdpool“, consisting of 4
OSDs per (one) NVMe device (per node). A first write-performance test yields
>
> =============
> root@ceph1:~# rados bench -p ssdpool 10 write -b 4M -t 16 --no-cleanup
> hints = 1
> Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size 4194304 for up
to 10 seconds or 0 objects
> Object prefix: benchmark_data_ceph1_78
> sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg lat(s)
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
> 1 16 30 14 55.997 56 0.0209977 0.493427
> 2 16 53 37 73.9903 92 0.0264305 0.692179
> 3 16 76 60 79.9871 92 0.559505 0.664204
> 4 16 99 83 82.9879 92 0.609332 0.721016
> 5 16 116 100 79.9889 68 0.686093 0.698084
> 6 16 132 116 77.3224 64 1.19715 0.731808
> 7 16 153 137 78.2741 84 0.622646 0.755812
> 8 16 171 155 77.486 72 0.25409 0.764022
> 9 16 192 176 78.2076 84 0.968321 0.775292
> 10 16 214 198 79.1856 88 0.401339 0.766764
> 11 1 214 213 77.4408 60 0.969693 0.784002
> Total time run: 11.0698
> Total writes made: 214
> Write size: 4194304
> Object size: 4194304
> Bandwidth (MB/sec): 77.3272
> Stddev Bandwidth: 13.7722
> Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 92
> Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 56
> Average IOPS: 19
> Stddev IOPS: 3.44304
> Max IOPS: 23
> Min IOPS: 14
> Average Latency(s): 0.785372
> Stddev Latency(s): 0.49011
> Max latency(s): 2.16532
> Min latency(s): 0.0144995
> =============
>
> ... and I think that 80 MB/s throughput is a very poor result in conjunction with
NVMe devices and 10 GBit nics.
>
> A bare write-test (with fsync=0 option) of the NVMe drives yields a write throughput
of round about 800 MB/s per device ... the second test (with fsync=1) drops performance to
200 MB/s.
>
> =============
> root@ceph1:/home/mschmid# fio --rw=randwrite --name=IOPS-write --bs=1024k --direct=1
--filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --numjobs=4 --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 --refill_buffers
--group_reporting --runtime=30 --time_based --fsync=0
> IOPS-write: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (T)
1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32...
> fio-3.12
> Starting 4 processes
> Jobs: 4 (f=4): [w(4)][100.0%][w=723MiB/s][w=722 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
> IOPS-write: (groupid=0, jobs=4): err= 0: pid=31585: Thu Apr 29 15:15:03 2021
> write: IOPS=740, BW=740MiB/s (776MB/s)(21.8GiB/30206msec); 0 zone resets
> slat (usec): min=16, max=810, avg=106.48, stdev=30.48
> clat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.09, stdev=120.18
> lat (msec): min=7, max=1110, avg=172.19, stdev=120.18
> clat percentiles (msec):
> | 1.00th=[ 32], 5.00th=[ 48], 10.00th=[ 53], 20.00th=[ 63],
> | 30.00th=[ 115], 40.00th=[ 161], 50.00th=[ 169], 60.00th=[ 178],
> | 70.00th=[ 190], 80.00th=[ 220], 90.00th=[ 264], 95.00th=[ 368],
> | 99.00th=[ 667], 99.50th=[ 751], 99.90th=[ 894], 99.95th=[ 986],
> | 99.99th=[ 1036]
> bw ( KiB/s): min=22528, max=639744, per=25.02%, avg=189649.94, stdev=113845.69,
samples=240
> iops : min= 22, max= 624, avg=185.11, stdev=111.18, samples=240
> lat (msec) : 10=0.01%, 20=0.19%, 50=6.43%, 100=20.29%, 250=61.52%
> lat (msec) : 500=8.21%, 750=2.85%, 1000=0.47%
> cpu : usr=11.87%, sys=2.05%, ctx=13141, majf=0, minf=45
> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.3%, 32=99.4%, >=64=0.0%
> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> issued rwts: total=0,22359,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
>
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
> WRITE: bw=740MiB/s (776MB/s), 740MiB/s-740MiB/s (776MB/s-776MB/s), io=21.8GiB
(23.4GB), run=30206-30206msec
>
> Disk stats (read/write):
> nvme0n1: ios=0/89150, merge=0/0, ticks=0/15065724, in_queue=15118720, util=99.75%
> =============
>
> Furthermore an IOPS-test on the NVMe device with block-size 4k shows round about 1000
IOPS with fsnyc=1 and 35000 IOPS with fsync=0.
>
> To my question: As CPU- and network-load seem to be low during my tests, I would like
to know, which bottleneck can cause such a huge performance drop between the bare
hardware-performance of the nvme-drives and the write-speeds in the rados benchmark. Could
the missing power loss protection (fsync=1) be the problem, or what throughput should one
expect to be normal in such a setup?
>
> Thanks for every advice!
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
3:50 p.m.
On 29/04/2021 11:52 pm, Schmid, Michael wrote:
I am new to ceph and at the moment I am doing some
performance tests with a 4 node ceph-cluster (pacific, 16.2.1).
Ceph doesn't do well with small numbers, 4 OSD's is really marginal.
Your latency isn't crash hot either. What size are you running on the
pool? The amount of RAM per node (8GB) would be the bare minimum as
well, your ceph setup is really constrained.
Do your OSD's have access to the raw device? are they bluestore?
Same test on my Cluster
* 5 Node,
* 20 OSD's (Total)
o Mix of SATA and SAS Spinners
o WAL/DB on SSD
* 64GB RAM Per node
* 4 * 1GB Bond
rados bench -p ceph 10 write -b 4M -t 16 --no-cleanup
hints = 1
Maintaining 16 concurrent writes of 4194304 bytes to objects of size
4194304 for up to 10 seconds or 0 objects
Object prefix: benchmark_data_vnh_3642327
sec Cur ops started finished avg MB/s cur MB/s last lat(s) avg
lat(s)
0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
1 16 58 42 167.99 168 0.21848 0.329228
2 16 102 86 171.986 176 0.456715 0.325869
3 16 154 138 183.983 208 0.109888 0.319586
4 16 206 190 189.981 208 0.188891 0.320275
5 16 258 242 193.581 208 0.261014 0.319318
6 16 308 292 194.647 200 0.450672 0.319268
7 16 358 342 195.408 200 0.127415 0.316999
8 16 406 390 194.98 192 0.176382 0.321384
9 16 456 440 195.535 200 0.287347 0.318749
10 16 508 492 196.779 208 0.279796 0.318067
Total time run: 10.2741
Total writes made: 508
Write size: 4194304
Object size: 4194304
Bandwidth (MB/sec): 197.78
Stddev Bandwidth: 14.2111
Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 208
Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 168
Average IOPS: 49
Stddev IOPS: 3.55278
Max IOPS: 52
Min IOPS: 42
Average Latency(s): 0.318968
Stddev Latency(s): 0.137534
Max latency(s): 0.913779
Min latency(s): 0.0933294
--
Lindsay
1123
days inactive
1124
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Lindsay Mathieson -
Marc -
Mark Lehrer -
Schmid, Michael