| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Aoe or iScsi???
On Monday 05 July 2010 18:43:20 Adi Kriegisch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I run bonnie++ like this:
> > bonnie++ -d /tmp/ -s 1000 -r 500 -n 1 -x 1 -u root | bon_csv2txt >
> > test.txt
>
> just checking: your storage server has 500MB RAM? (-r)
>
> > This is the result:
> >
> > Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> > --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
> > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> > /sec %CP bacula-selbet 1000M 53004 98 189796 37 97783 17 62844 99
> > 1505552 99 +++++
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > It's tell something?
>
> Ja, your storage system can handle ~190MB/s sequential write. This means
> you will not get full peak performance to your clients as one gigabit
> interface is limited with 120MB/s.
> Your write speed (1,15GB/s) shows that you misspecified RAM size on your
> bonnie commandline because this is _WAY_ beyond what your disks are able to
> handle. (Good SATA disks will give you above 100MB/s read speed. Reading at
> that speed hints at 15 or more disks; the limit there is definitely bus
> speed and administrative overhead.)
>
> What you are really interested in (or should be) are IOPS (Input Output
> Operations per Second): A typical server or workstation no matter if
> virtual or 'real' does a mixture between sequential and random I/O.
> Every server you run has its own partition on your storage backend. Just to
> get a better idea of what I am talking about consider the following:
> Every virtual machine does a sequential file read. What does that mean on
> the storage backend? -- There are 13 files being read at 13 different
> positions at the same time. This is a (close to) random I/O workload. Disk
> heads are flying around to satisfy all requests. No way you will be close
> to any high MB/s value: your disks are doing random I/O.
> Measuring sequential peak performances on network storage is pointless for
> this very reason. (People on this list were suggesting to do that just to
> verify your disk subsystem works fine.)
> To get an idea of what performance you might expect, you can do the
> following:
> 1. calculate IOPS that you might expect. You may use one of the online
> calculators that are available[1].
> This begins with calculating IOPS per disk where you might need to
> consult your vendor's datasheet or lookup the disks here[2]. You'll
> immediately notice that SAS disks offer twice or more IOPS than SATA
> drives.
> When calculating IOPS you need to specify a workload as well. This means
> specify the read/write ratio. Average fileservers have around 80% read
> and 20% write. Read and write operations differ in the latency they
> have: The more latency a request has the fewer requests can be handled
> per second. (This is also the reason why local storage will always bring
> more IOPS than network storage: network transport simply adds to
> latency.) 2. measure the IOPS you get. I personally prefer using FIO[3]
> which is readily available in Debian. FIO is fully configurable; there are
> however some reasonable examples which you might use:
> /usr/share/doc/fio/examples/iometer-file-access-server mimiks a typical
> file server workload with 80% read. The IOPS calculator above[1] is only
> able to calculate IOPS for a fixed block size where this workload mixes
> blocksizes from 512byte to 64k. The result in IOPS cannot be directly
> compared. If you want to do so, you need to specify 4k blocks only in
> the config.
> WARNING: Do not use IOMeter itself on linux: it provides incorrect
> results as it cannot use aio on linux and therefor is unable to queue
> requests.
> Using the stock 'iometer-file-access-server' profile you should get the
> something like:
> 3 disks/RAID5: 200-250 IOPS
> 4 disks/RAID5: 270-320 IOPS
> 5 disks/RAID5: 340-390 IOPS
> and so on (for SATA disks with AoE).
> 3. find the bottleneck in case you're not getting what you can expect.
> Measure IOPS on the storage server with 'iostat 1' ("tps" roughly
> corresponds to IOPS).
> ...ok, writing up how to debug a storage backend will take another
> hour... ask me if necessary.
>
> -- Adi
>
> [1] http://www.wmarow.com/strcalc/
> [2] http://www.wmarow.com/strdir/hdd/
> [3] http://freshmeat.net/projects/fio
>
> PS: Maybe there should be a wiki page about how to plan and implement a
> storage backend for a xen server? -- then others can add their knowledge
> more easily.
> ...and the question pops up every once in a while.
>
Adi,
I have been looking at FIO, but what jobfile do you use that you find optimal
to test network storage for Xen?
cheers,
B.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home