[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Slowness above 500 RRDs



Hi David,

Sorry if all what follows is misguided nonsense.  I'm eager to learn...

David Teigland <teigland redhat com> writes:

> The new code has much better caching in the dlm which will benefit flocks,
> look at these flock numbers I sent before: [...]
>
> This is testing raw flock performance.  The dlm locks for normal file
> operations should be cached and locally mastered also, so I'm not sure
> what's causing the long times.  Make sure that drop_count is zero again,
> now it's in sysfs:
>   echo 0 > /sys/fs/gfs/<foo>:<bar>/lock_module/drop_count
>
> Also, mount debugfs so we can check some stuff later:
>   mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
>
> Then run some tests:
> - mount on nodeA
> - run the test on nodeA
> - count locks on nodeA
>   (cat /sys/kernel/debug/dlm/<bar> | grep Master | wc -l)
> - mount on nodeB (don't do anything on this node)
> - run the test again on nodeA
> - count locks on nodeA and nodeB (see above)
> - mount on nodeC (don't do anything on nodes B or C)
> - run the test again on nodeA
> - count locks on nodes A, B and C (see above)
>
> We're basically trying to produce the best-case performance from one node,
> nodeA.  That means making sure that nodeA is mastering all locks and doing
> maximum caching.  That's why it's important that we not do anything at all
> that accesses the fs on nodes B or C, or do any extra mounts/unmounts.

I made all the above tests and composed the reply a long time ago, but
now, getting back to it after that long time, I decided to satisfy your
curiosity, behold...

> Plocks will be much slower and are probably not interesting to test, but
> I'm curious if you added the "-l0" option to gfs_controld?  That option
> turns off the code that intentionally limits the rate of plocks.  See the
> old results again: [...]

Now, that switch makes ALL the difference.  With a single node
switched on, I get results like this (with abbreviated strace -c
output appended):

without -l0:

filecount=500
  iteration=0 elapsed time=10.444446 s
  iteration=1 elapsed time=9.693618 s
  iteration=2 elapsed time=10.520073 s
  iteration=3 elapsed time=10.521504 s
  iteration=4 elapsed time=10.520183 s
total elapsed time=51.699824 s
Process 5265 detached
% time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
 83.27    0.048525           6      7551           read
  6.73    0.003923           2      2502           fcntl64
  4.47    0.002606           1      2528           close
  3.09    0.001801           1      2551        23 open
  0.74    0.000432           0      2507           write
  0.71    0.000415           0      5033           mmap2
  0.41    0.000237           0     12528         3 _llseek
  0.31    0.000178           0      5001           munmap
  0.18    0.000107           0      5015           fstat64
  0.08    0.000049           0      2506           gettimeofday
  0.00    0.000000           0        16        14 ioctl
  0.00    0.000000           0       202       182 stat64
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
100.00    0.058273                 47974       229 total

with -l0:

filecount=500
  iteration=0 elapsed time=5.966146 s
  iteration=1 elapsed time=0.582058 s
  iteration=2 elapsed time=0.528272 s
  iteration=3 elapsed time=0.936438 s
  iteration=4 elapsed time=0.528147 s
total elapsed time=8.541061 s
Process 10030 detached
% time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
 57.17    0.016527           2      7551           read
 21.49    0.006213           2      2528           close
  8.16    0.002358           1      2502           fcntl64
  6.59    0.001904           1      2551        23 open
  2.21    0.000638           0      2507           write
  1.46    0.000421           0      5033           mmap2
  0.86    0.000249         249         1           execve
  0.73    0.000212           0      5001           munmap
  0.65    0.000187           0     12528         3 _llseek
  0.57    0.000165           0      5015           fstat64
  0.12    0.000034           0      2506           gettimeofday
  0.00    0.000000           0        16        14 ioctl
  0.00    0.000000           0       202       182 stat64
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
100.00    0.028908                 47974       229 total

Looks like the bottleneck isn't the explicit locking (be it plock or
flock), but something else, like the built-in GFS locking.

Similar dramatic speedup can be achieved (with a single node switched
on, again), by the lockproto=lock_nolock mount option, even if used
together with ignore_local_fs.  It I understand it right, this
combination leaves the cluster-wide [pf]locks alone, just eliminates
the GFS internal locking, which guards the internal consistency of the
file system (please correct me if I'm wrong).

What's strange, is that gfs_controld -l0 seems like a perfectly safe
invocation (what's the catch, ie. why was the artifical limit
introduced?), still it achieves almost the same speedup like using
lock_nolock, which would be a disaster with more than one node
mounting the fs.  (Also this trick scales pretty well to 4000 files.)

Again, the above tests were done with a single node switched on, and
I'm not sure whether the results carry over to the real cluster setup,
will test is soon.  I didn't touch drop_count either, everything was
left as default, except for the mount options and the -l option.

Also, I can send the results of the scenario suggested by you, if it's
still relevant.  In short: the locks are always mastered on node A
only, but the performance is poor nevertheless.
-- 
Regards,
Feri.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]