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

Re: [linux-lvm] poor read performance on rbd+LVM, LVM overload



On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21 2013 at 12:02pm -0400,
> Sage Weil <sage inktank com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21 2013 at 10:11am -0400,
> > > Christoph Hellwig <hch infradead org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:58:58PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > > > It looks like without LVM we're getting 128KB requests (which IIRC is 
> > > > > typical), but with LVM it's only 4KB.  Unfortunately my memory is a bit 
> > > > > fuzzy here, but I seem to recall a property on the request_queue or device 
> > > > > that affected this.  RBD is currently doing
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately most device mapper modules still split all I/O into 4k
> > > > chunks before handling them.  They rely on the elevator to merge them
> > > > back together down the line, which isn't overly efficient but should at
> > > > least provide larger segments for the common cases.
> > > 
> > > It isn't DM that splits the IO into 4K chunks; it is the VM subsystem
> > > no?  Unless care is taken to assemble larger bios (higher up the IO
> > > stack, e.g. in XFS), all buffered IO will come to bio-based DM targets
> > > in $PAGE_SIZE granularity.
> > > 
> > > I would expect direct IO to before better here because it will make use
> > > of bio_add_page to build up larger IOs.
> > 
> > I do know that we regularly see 128 KB requests when we put XFS (or 
> > whatever else) directly on top of /dev/rbd*.
> 
> Should be pretty straight-forward to identify any limits that are
> different by walking sysfs/queue, e.g.:
> 
> grep -r . /sys/block/rdbXXX/queue
> vs
> grep -r . /sys/block/dm-X/queue
> 
> Could be there is an unexpected difference.  For instance, there was
> this fix recently: http://patchwork.usersys.redhat.com/patch/69661/
> 
> > > Taking a step back, the rbd driver is exposing both the minimum_io_size
> > > and optimal_io_size as 4M.  This symmetry will cause XFS to _not_ detect
> > > the exposed limits as striping.  Therefore, AFAIK, XFS won't take steps
> > > to respect the limits when it assembles its bios (via bio_add_page).
> > > 
> > > Sage, any reason why you don't use traditional raid geomtry based IO
> > > limits?, e.g.:
> > > 
> > > minimum_io_size = raid chunk size
> > > optimal_io_size = raid chunk size * N stripes (aka full stripe)
> > 
> > We are... by default we stripe 4M chunks across 4M objects.  You're 
> > suggesting it would actually help to advertise a smaller minimim_io_size 
> > (say, 1MB)?  This could easily be made tunable.
> 
> You're striping 4MB chunks across 4 million stripes?
> 
> So the full stripe size in bytes is 17592186044416 (or 16TB)?  Yeah
> cannot see how XFS could make use of that ;)

Sorry, I mean the stripe count is effectively 1.  Each 4MB gets mapped to 
a new 4MB object (for a total of image_size / 4MB objects).  So I think 
minimum_io_size and optimal_io_size are technically correct in this case.

sage


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