[PVE-User] Poor CEPH performance? or normal?
mark at openvs.co.uk
Sat Jul 28 13:00:15 CEST 2018
Thanks for your great round up there - Your points are excellent.
What I have ended up doing a few days ago (apologies have been too busy to
respond..) was set rbd cache = true under each client in the ceph.conf -
This got me from 15MB/s up to about 70MB/s. I then set the disk holding the
zfs dataset to writeback cache in proxmox (as you note below) and that has
bumped it up to about 130MB/s -- Which I am happy with for this setup.
On 27 July 2018 at 14:46, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> On 2018-07-27 07:05, ronny+pve-user at aasen.cx wrote:
>> rbd striping is a per image setting. you may need to make the rbd
>> image and migrate data.
>> On 07/26/18 12:25, Mark Adams wrote:
>>> Thanks for your suggestions. Do you know if it is possible to change an
>>> existing rbd pool to striping? or does this have to be done on first
> Please be aware that striping will not result in any increased
> performance, if you are using "safe" I/O modes, i.e. your VM waits for a
> successful flush-to-disk after every sector. In that scenario, CEPH will
> never give you write performance equal to a local disk because you're
> limited to the bandwidth of a single remote disk [subsystem] *plus* the
> network round-trip latency, which even if measured in microseconds, still
> adds up.
> Based on my experience with this and other distributed storage systems, I
> believe you will likely find that you get large write-performance gains by:
> 1. use the largest possible block size during writes. 512B sectors are
> the worst-case scenario for any remote storage. Try to write in chunks of
> *at least* 1 MByte, and it's not unreasonable nowadays to write in chunks
> of 64MB or larger. The rationale here is that you're spending more time
> sending data, and less time waiting for ACKs. The more you can tilt that
> in favor of data, the better off you are. (There are downsides to huge
> sector/block/chunk sizes, though - this isn't a "free lunch" scenario. See
> 2. relax your write-consistency requirements. If you can tolerate the
> small risk with "Write Back" you should see better performance, especially
> during burst writes. During large sequential writes, there are not many
> ways to violate the laws of physics, and CEPH automatically amplifies your
> writes by (in your case) a factor of 2x due to replication.
> 3. switch to storage devices with the best possible local write speed, for
> OSDs. OSDs are limited by the performance of the underlying device or
> virtual device. (e.g. it's totally possible to run OSDs on a hardware
> RAID6 controller)
> 4. Avoid CoW-on-CoW. Write amplification means you'll lose around 50% of
> your IOPS and/or I/O bandwidth for each level of CoW nesting, depending on
> workload. So don't put CEPH OSDs on, ssy, BTRFS or ZFS filesystems. A
> worst-case scenario would be something like running a VM using ZFS on top
> of CEPH, where the OSDs are located on BTRFS filsystems, which are in turn
> virtual devices hosted on ZFS filesystems. Welcome to 1980's storage
> performance, in that case! (I did it without realizing once... seriously,
> 5 MBps sequential writes was a good day!) FWIW, CoW filesystems are
> generally awesome - just not when stacked. A sufficiently fast external
> NAS running ZFS with VMs stored over NFS can provide decent performance,
> *if* tuned correctly. iX Systems, for example, spends a lot of time &
> effort making this work well, including some lovely HA NAS appliances.
> 5. Remember the triangle. You can optimize a distributed storage system
> for any TWO of: a) cost, b) resiliency/reliability/HA, or c) speed. (This
> is a specific case of the traditional good/fast/cheap:pick-any-2 adage.)
> I'm not sure I'm saying anything new here, I may have just summarized the
> discussion, but the points remain valid.
> Good luck with your performance problems.
> pve-user mailing list
> pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
More information about the pve-user