Dardo D Kleiner - CONTRACTOR
2009-Nov-10 13:02 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] poor lustre wan performance
(Cross posting here in the hopes of finding a wider audience) SLES11 x86_64/Lustre 1.8.1.1 options ko2iblnd map_on_demand=31 peer_credits=128 credits=256 concurrent_sends=256 \ ntx=512 fmr_pool_size=512 fmr_flush_trigger=384 fmr_cache=1 Local write performance is ok, 300-400 MB/sec - however with any substantial latency performance tanks (10-30 MB/sec). Only thing I can see that''s relevant is that although the rpc sizes are good, the number of write rpcs in flight never goes above 1, e.g. with 30 ms latency: snapshot_time: 1257795116.522124 (secs.usecs) read RPCs in flight: 0 write RPCs in flight: 1 pending write pages: 256 pending read pages: 0 read write pages per rpc rpcs % cum % | rpcs % cum % 1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 2: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 4: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 8: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 16: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 32: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 64: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 128: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 256: 0 0 0 | 100 100 100 read write rpcs in flight rpcs % cum % | rpcs % cum % 0: 0 0 0 | 100 100 100 read write offset rpcs % cum % | rpcs % cum % 0: 0 0 0 | 100 100 100 At this point it clearly doesn''t matter if I mess with max_rpcs_in_flight which used to be a way to mitigate the high BDP. Are there new parameters and/or tunings for ko2iblnd we''re supposed to be using? Did something change with 1.8.1.1 in this regard - I''m trying to determine if it was our move to SLES11 or something else? Our operational deployment is not yet at this latest version but are wary to upgrade since I''ve indicated I''m having problems. Any suggestions greatly appreciated... - Dardo
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:02:03AM -0500, Dardo D Kleiner - CONTRACTOR wrote:> ...... > At this point it clearly doesn''t matter if I mess with max_rpcs_in_flight which used > to be a way to mitigate the high BDP. > > Are there new parameters and/or tunings for ko2iblnd we''re supposed to be using? Did > something change with 1.8.1.1 in this regard - I''m trying to determine if it was our > move to SLES11 or something else? Our operational deployment is not yet at this > latest version but are wary to upgrade since I''ve indicated I''m having problems.As far as I know, there''s been no change to the ko2iblnd since the map_on_demand feature which you''re already using. Though it might seem likely that somehow Lustre services were not creating enough RPCs to keep the pipe full, it''d be easy and quick to run a LNet selftest to narrow it down (if you haven''t done so already). If a bulk write test from the same client nodes to the same server nodes results in similar figures, then we''d certainly look at LNet/ko2iblnd. Thanks, Isaac