cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fabrice Brazier <fabrice.braz...@apalia.net>
Subject RE: Primary Storage - DATA-ROT IS MORE TO WORRY ABOUT
Date Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:53:39 GMT
Hi,

@bruce, it's pretty fun because you bought 30 discs but only 2 LSI 9280-8i
or the 8i mean 8 internals ports (so with 2 lsi you can have only 16 disks).

After that a velociraptor disk it's only a 10k discs so we can count 120
IOPs by disks. If we put them in a raid 5 (by the way everybody know that
raid 5 don't scale very well after 12 disk the performance doesn't increase
so much but nevermind you built your raid 5 of 30 disks).
So you have a maximum of (30-1)*120=3480 iops for read and
((30-1)*120)/5=700 iops write (in a 100% random profile) And you have only
32Gb ram wich is peanuts to caching your read iops.

So the only way you have to make performance is your cahecade.
Now a cachecade is made of ssd (weird actually it's the same as zil and
l2arc in zfs xD) plus the max size of a cachecade and the maximum size of a
cachecade is 512 Gb by controller. You have 2 controller so 1Tb cachecade
max.

So you say your storage doesn't cost anything but you don't talk about the
size and the price of your cachecade.
And another thing the day you will have a real workload (not only 50 Vms...)
and this workload will be larger than 1Tb come again and explain us your
very large performance.

Me too I can built a zfs server with 4 zeusram in zil and 5 disks behind and
make a benchmark on files of 2Gb and say hey see I have 500 000 Iops and 4Gb
of throughput...

Regards

-----Message d'origine-----
De : bruce.m@v365.com.au [mailto:bruce.m@v365.com.au]
Envoyé : mercredi 24 octobre 2012 06:04
À : cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Objet : Re: Primary Storage - DATA-ROT IS MORE TO WORRY ABOUT



These Sans we have build have saved us a fortune $ compared to FC Block I/O
Sans from IBM, HP etc

Ive been a contractor for IBM and HP
for 20 years. I know how much they are $$$$$ and what they can do.

A
Decent DS4000 you'll be looking at 80K, or Storageworks $90K. And if your
lucky you may get 100,000 perhaps 150,000 IOPS

What ive build is
better. cheaper, and frankly as i support Linux and SCST, much more
reliable.

the WD VR 1TB we get new for $310 so 30 x =$9,300 LSI 92808-8i x 2 $1800
($900 ea) The case $600 the mobo and 1 x Xeon 5650 $1000, 32GB ECCRam $800,
Dual PSU $650, about $14,000 for a much superior SAN.

As i explained another $15K for infiniband network. which does SRP and IP

As for your issues with cache misses, the CacheCade doesn't Miss much from
our tests. with WriteBack enabled, BBU enabled, and the SANs are on our
primary 22KVA UPS It never fails.

Also Its not
doing very much unless a user in the cloud is hitting sequential blocks or
R/W the same data repeatedly for some weird reason. Even then we see little
lagg or slow down, when as you say its hitting the Disc.
Infiniband with LSI Just rocks even more than we had thought!

The R/W
pattern from groups of 50 VM.s appear to be completely random, web servers,
virtual firewalls, email servers, DNS etc, FTP, windows domains, sharepoint,
MSSQL, MYSQL working on the same Lun which are not considered critical (as
stated by clients) are each VM getting over 300-1200MB/s constantly even
when other users are pulling or pushing a file copy @ 250Mb/s between VMs
etc. Weve actually had to figure out how to slow down the SRP connections.
If a user is provisioned with 2 Luns from each SAN, in windows you can copy
between VM Drives @ 1220MB/s!!!!!
faster than SSD in Linux its even faster, and that is in ESXi4.1 with
15~20 Servers per VM Host.

we have snmp monitoring the 2 primary sans, and they never go above 30%
bandwidth. so the point is the Cache has no real bearing on Cloud I/O. cloud
IO is fairly low. We have LSI supplying us with the new PICE3 cards for a
trial, so i expect even better performance. So long STORY SHORT. GET LSI AND
16 x WD VR's and try it yourself! And yes we compared IOPS on 5 x 500MB/s
SSD's its SLOWER! MORE SPINDLES = MORE SPEED!

the main reason we wanted fast IO is for backups, snapshots, so as not to
interfere with the daily operational workings of the cloud VM guests. Which
is doesn't. SOOO many TIMES with FC ive seen the attitude yeah that will
work, and some smart ass does a restore or backup in prod hours, only to see
the whole cluster slow down to a crawl. on iSCSI its even more pathetic.

With SRP on LSI " WE DONT
HAVE THAT PROBLEM!"

I did a snapshot restore for 2 machines yesterday for a client, it took 2
mins to restore 100GB. And none of the other servers were affected. SNMP
latency on all VM's no impact. Virtually 0CPU cycles on the VMware hosts for
the IO move. IO latency/storage path for other VM's from snmp data from
VMserver was 2ms which is normal. the machine doing the copy crept up to
10ms but no more.

So my conclusion
ON REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS IS.... INFINIBAND SRP IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING!

Cache misses we don't have a problem there at all. Were more worried about
Data Rot, which is why were interested in GFS to ZFS Luns.
But ZFS is still slow as compared to what we have.....

we are going to
launch a new script which moves a file full of 16-bit random io for 100MB,
and 1TB, it will create a binary checksum for each file, and we can compare
it over time to check for data rot.

Just so you can
appreciate the speed. We Ran IO meter from 3 VMs on 3 separate VM Hosts.
the 1st get max i/o ie up to 400,000 IOPS and pushing 2400MB/s we started
the 2nd, while the 1st was running, same results across the 2 VM's. then the
3rd concurrently. they all dropped to 2000MB/s and IOPS went down to 220,000
per host. so yes there is a penalty. But the way infiniband works is that
the switch balances the load across all servers. 4th server online same
test. and we get 150,000 IOPS on each server, all doing 1700~1800MB/s @ 128K
blocks 50%50% random seq. change the distribution to 100% random makes
little difference. We confirmed all the drives were being accessed! all
were. we even took a look at the camera out DC to monitor the array LEDS...
alll Flickers like mad! we took a look at the metrics of the Megaraid as we
got it to work on CentOS, no errors, no issues or problems, no dropped reads
or writes.

we set the file on IO meter as high as poss 900000000 units. We then fired
up 2 more hosts and did real world file copy, no real impact still get
2200MB/s+ read write easily. So we stopped IO Meter and did 6 concurrent
file copies between the 2 sans and each host blew us away at 2000MB/s read
and write across all 6 hosts.!! FXXK we were amazed

Aside
from that LSI have done a super job on the Cache modules on their cards.
I dont see how ZFS will ever approach this kind of performance.

Anyway
take from what ive said what you like. We have an awsum SAN... and its CHEAP
and Amazingly fast!

were in the process of developing a public Cloud, so when the web site is
finn we will publish all of this in a whitepaper there.

On 24.10.2012 10:57, Jason Davis wrote:
> Passionate
are you? Take it easy I am not knocking on what you are doing.
>
> The
term "spinning rust" is a catch all for hard drives, nothing personal
>
at all, in fact the setup you have is impressive.
>
> Impressive until
you have a cache miss. Cache misses are definitely an
> issue even in
"capital E" enterprise storage.
>
> Big bad XIV disk arrays or 3par are
impressive, fast arrays (crazy
> expensive ;]) when you are hitting DRAM
or SSD but if you are running cache
> unfriendly workloads then
ultimately your array is only as fast as the
> spinning disk sitting at
the lowest tier.
>
> I agree that openstorage is the way to go, from a
service providers
> perspective it's hard being competitive with AWS or
RackSpace if you are
> using expensive traditional SAN.
>
> So anyway,
my question wasn't a poke at what you are doing, just curious
> about
how big of an IOP/latency drop you see once a read or write has to
>
actually see the spinning disk. :)
> On Oct 23, 2012 8:10 PM, wrote:
>

>>
>>
>> oh well if your negative, and make rude comments then that's
your
>> problem, i don't care about you.
>>
>> If you don't believe that
RDMA can
>> perform this fast then again, your problem.
>>
>> Ask anyone
with a decent
>> 12+ Disc Raid Array, and RDMA and they will tell you it
will kick you in
>> YOUR ballz! Anyone in storage knows to get iops and
performance you need
>> 12 preferably 16 spindles.
>>
>> the spinning
rust as you call it, are the
>> newest 200MB/s WD Veloci Raprors with
64MB Cache. @ 10KRPM 2.5" dics in
>> 32 Bay Storage Chassis.
>>
>> we've
used them in the past and they are as
>> reliable as the SAS drives we
use, but faster!
>>
>> RAID 10 IS BULLSHIT!
>> Bloody slow and 50% goes
up in smoke for nothing. All you get is the
>> mirror speed of 2 drives
which is barley 400MB/s tops! I Spit on RAID 10
>>
>>
>> We also tried
Raid 60 and it was very good as well. But no point to
>> use it as we
replicated to 2nd SAN
>>
>> When we tested our new SANs, we
>> failed 1
drive and set the rebuild rate to 30% on raid 6, with 40% scan
>> rate.
The SAN only had 6TB of data on it. and it rebuilt in 3 hours. we
>>
removed a 2nd disc, and replaced with blank, and it was rebuild in
>>
another 4 hours. With no real impact to performance tests.
>>
>>
Separating
>> the underlying 6Gb/s Sata ports x 8 into effectively 16 x
3Gb/s Channels
>> using a SAS Expander gives each Disc 300MB/s of
bandwidth. They cant
>> physically perform better than 200~220MB/s so
there is enough bandwidth
>> on the SATA and PCIE Bus to cope. LSI rate
the 9280-8i @ 2500MB/s but it
>> does work faster with Cache Cade. up to
3200MB/s in that test.
>>
>> So a
>> real SAN has many spindles of high
performance, and the WD VRs are
>> better than some cheap SSD
drives.
>>
>> RDMA is very fast, low cpu cycles,
>> and reads and write
directly to RAM@ 40Gb/s, we created a RAM drive and
>> tested it up to
3200MB/s which is as fast as the PCIE 2 Bus / LSI could
>> Handle.
>>
>>
If you cant afford this realtivley cheap equipment (compated to
>> IBM
DS or HP StorageWorks SAN) then dont wing at ME. You cant get fast
>>
performance. Any real Cloud would have what we have built. None of our
>> customers, ALL 300 Of them! have lost a single bit of data, all
VMs are
>> running very quickly, and with no problems now for 3
months.
>>
>> So If you
>> dont appreciate being shown how to build a
kick ASS SAN then PISS
>> OFF!
>>
>> On 24.10.2012 08:17, Jason Davis
wrote:
>> > How often do you have
>> folks cache missing and hitting the
spinning rust
>> > below the cache cade
>> tier?
>> > On Oct 23, 2012
6:25 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> with our
>> SCST
RDMA we have 40GB/s QDR Gen 2 with Mellanox Grid
>> >> Director 4036
>>
switches + HP Gen2 QDR Chassis Switches.
>> >>
>> >> Our San achieves
>>
>>
>> 295,000 - 350,000 Iops max per LSI controller, depending on
block
>> size
>> >> for i/o meter test. LSI9280-8i with battery cache.
+
>> cachecade2.0 x 2 in
>> >> PCIE 16x slot on supermicro
motherboard.
>> >>
>> >> 1
>> x 250GB SSD for CACHE Cade +
>> >> 16 1tb
WD VR drives (16 - hot stand buy
>> - 2 for raid 6 parity) =
>> >>
2600MB/s
>> >>
>> >> most of our test are from 4K
>> to 128K block size,
@ 4K we get
>> >> 295,000 Iops @ 1590 MB/s and @ 128K
>> 350,000 iops @
2400~2600MB/s
>> >>
>> >> we
>> >> have tuned 64K and 128K block
>> size
on different luns. 64K for database
>> >> and 128K for general
>>
file.
>> >>
>> >> The best thing about Infiniband is low CPU
>> >>
cycles. only
>> 5~6% during these tests.
>> >>
>> >> latency is as low
as 4-6ms
>> >> average
>> read time. concurrent response times are from
5-12ms. even under
>> >>
>> heavy load its below 20ms
>> >>
>> >>
Infiniband latency is below 0.01 us
>> Which is
>> >> why we chose
it.
>> >>
>> >> we run MSSQL on the 64K formatted
>> Luns, its
massively
>> >> fast.
>> >>
>> >> If we copy the same data twice the
>>
cache cade kicks in and we
>> >> achieve even better speeds.
>> >>
>> >>
Ive
>> compared this to block io @ 8Gb/s Fiber
>> >> channel, and it
barely gets
>> 120,000 IOPS. @ much higher latency and
>> >>
bandwidth.
>> >>
>> >> So for our
>> money RDMA wins!
>> >>
>> >>
Bruce
>> >>
>> >> On 23.10.2012 21:20,
>> >> Jason Davis
>> wrote:
>> >>
> Out of curiosity, is there any quick performance
>> >> numbers
>> for
these ZFS +
>> >> > GlusterFS mashups you guys are talking
>> >>
about?
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > Specifically, IOPs and latency? Sequential
read/write
>> >>
>> performance honestly
>> >> > isn't a very good
benchmark to determine
>> your
>> >> SANs performance. It's like
>> >> >
comparing CPUs based solely on
>> how many
>> >> GHz it runs at. Sure
you can get
>> >> > great MB or GB/s with
>> SATA disk but
>> >> I'd
reckon that IOP performance is
>> >> > abismal. If you
>> are
utilizing
>> >> GlusterFS without the cache pooling magic
>> >> > that
is
>> ZFS then I would
>> >> imagine that latency can be an issue.
>> >>
>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at
>> >> 7:56 AM,
Andreas Huser wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi Fabrice,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i
know
>> >> OpenSolaris/Solaris Oracle it's so
>> a thing.
>> >> >> I'm
for more then 10
>> >> years a open source user and
>> that
>> >> >>
with oracle - i did no like at the
>> >> beginning of this
>>
constallation.
>> >> >> But Oracle makes his work good i
>> >> know
that. The
>> cost of one socket
>> >> >> are 700$ and you can use so
much
>> >> quantity of
>> TB as you will.
>> >> >> And you can use the
full premier Support
>> >> from
>> Oracle.
>> >> >> Nexenta develop with
the Illumos code. And the Licence
>> >>
>> are TB based.
>> >> >> That
is not my favorite. As well the pool version
>> from
>> >> Nexenta
comes
>> >> >> not after. Current Nexenta Infiniband are
>> not a
usable
>> >> solution.
>> >> >> But every can use what he will.
Everyone
>> must decide for
>> >> themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SRP
Targets or iser are not
>> difficult to configure.
>> >> Use the SRP
for
>> >> >> the Storage unit
>> connection. Solaris and GlusterFS
>> >>
builds one Storage unit.
>> >> >> The
>> GlusterFS Server export the
final Volume
>> >> to the Clients as well
>> KVM,
>> >> >> VMWare,
Hyper-V etc.
>> >> >> You can use
>> >> native GlusterFS,
>> RDMA, NFS
ore CIFS to export the Volume.
>> >> >> SRP have
>> >> nothing to do
>>
with VmWare.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When you are use a 7200 SAS drive the
>>
>> access
>> time are the same as a
>> >> >> SATA drive only the quality
of the
>> >>
>> hardware are better. When you need
>> >> >> Performance
you must use SAS
>> >>
>> drives with 15000U/m. But it's not needed
>>
>> >> when you install SSD
>> for
>> >> ZIL/L2ARC. ZeusRAM rocks :-)
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> I use dedup only at
>> secondary stroage
>> >> or on
Backupserver not on Primary
>> >> >> Storage.
>> >>
>> >> When you use
SSD SATA
>> >> drives then you have an cheap an fast
>> strorage.
>> >>
>> 1TB drive cost unter
>> >> 100$. Current i'm not need to
>> save
storage volume.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which
>> >> application use atime? I
know
>> "find -atime N". atime on a Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> that stores
only Virtual
>> Disks?
>> >> >> I don't need the information when i
>>
>> have last opening
>> the disk :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For a Solaris GUI
take a look at
>> >> napp-it
>> >>
>> >> http://www.napp-it.org/
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> greetings from germany
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> Andreas
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> >>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Von:
>> >> "Fabrice Brazier">> An:
>>
cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >> Gesendet: Dienstag,
23.
>> Oktober 2012 12:30:50
>> >> >> Betreff: RE: Primary
>> >>
Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> Hi Andreas,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hum that's
pretty cool, i know they have
>> >>
>> still trouble with infiniband
on
>> >> >> nexenta but it's clearly a
>> priority
>> >> on their
roadmap (plus i trust more the
>> >> >> nexenta team
>> to evolve zfs
>>
>> than oracle).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree iscsi over infiniband
>>
increase the latency
>> >> but most of the time
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >>
just more
>> simple to use IPOIB than IB,
>> >> for example if you use
vmware the
>> >> >>
>> support of infiniband it's assured
>> >> by
mellanox and not vmware so if
>> you
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> an issue the
vmware
>> >> support probably don't help
>> you anymore.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> About the raid i'm a fan
>> >> of raid 10, i
>> prefer build a raid
10 with 7200 sas
>> >> >> drive than
>> >> multiple vdev
>> raidz/raidz2
15k sas drive. Particularly for
>> >> >> virtual
>> >>
>> environment
with a random workload and multiple access.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm
>> a
fan
>> >> of nfs so agreed about the zil, and zeus ram are the only
one
>> for
>> >> >>
>> >> that (with classical ssd you can hit the write
hole).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Agreed for
>> >> compression too (but only
lzjb level gzip use too
>> much cpu),
>> >> >> disable
>> >> atime
permit to decrease the iops load but
>> i'm not sure is really a
>> >>
>>
>> >> best practice. About the deduplication
>> I don't totally
agree. It
>> >> really
>> >> >> depends of your array, the
>> workload
and the VM type on your
>> >> cloudstack.
>> >> >> Actually when i
>>
build a zfs array i count 1Gb ram for 1Tb
>> >> disks. With
>> >> >>
>>
deduplication i count 2Gb ram for 1 Tb disks (plus in
>> >> nexenta 4
they
>> will
>> >> >> add a possibility to use ssd for the
>> >>
deduplication metada,
>> like the l2arc
>> >> >> for the read cache).
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> The
>> >> last point
>> it's about your drives, why sata
drives? I mean sata
>> >> doesn't
>> >> >>
>> respect their latency, and
the reliability of a sas drive is
>> >> 10x the
>> sata.
>> >> >> Plus
now you can found many NL-sas drive at low
>> >> cost
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> But it's really a nice architecture, i never try glusterfs
>> >>
>>
(for the moment)
>> >> >> plus in that case it's really a good way to
have
>> a
>> >> replacement to a
>> >> >> metro-cluster for free, i try
one of is
>> competitor
>> >> (onefs) and clearly
>> >> >> clustered
filesystem are the
>> futur.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
Fabrice
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Message
>> d'origine-----
>> >> >> De :
Andreas
>> >> Huser
>> [mailto:ahuser@7five-edv.de]
>> >> >> Envoyé :
mardi 23 octobre 2012
>> >>
>> 11:37
>> >> >> À :
cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> Objet :
>> Re:
>> >>
Primary Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Fabrice,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't
know
>> what other people
>> >> do but i have no problems with
Infiniband +
>> >> >>
>> GlusterFS + Cloudstack
>> >> I'm not use
Nexenta it's based on Illumos and
>> work
>> >> >> not fine with
>> >>
Infiniband.
>> >> >> I have two different
>> clusters in productiv
>> >>
enviroments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The first: Solaris 11
>> with built-in
GlusterFS 3.3
>> >> export Gluster Vol. with
>> >> >> RDMA. >
>>
performance is okey you can use that
>> >> for smaller enviroments
The
>> >>
>> >> Second: Is a little bit complex with a GlusterFS
Server in the
>> middle
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ZFS Server: based on Solaris
11
>> >> >>
>> >> 1.) Create a
>> zpool min. two vdevs and SSD
read/write cache
>> >> >> 2.) Create
>> >> a thin
>> provisioning Volume
"zfs create -V" disable atime and
>> >> >> enable
>> >>
>> compression
(do not enable dedup!) and export as (iWarp) SRP Target
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> to the GlusterFS Server use a direct connection without IB
>>
Switch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> GlusterFS Server:
>> >> >> 1.) Use
RedHat, CentOS or
>> Fedora (I use CentOS 5
>> >> and 6)
>> >> >> 2.)
Use OFED driver from
>> https://www.openfabrics.org
>> >> >> 3.)
>> >>
Import the SRP Target from ZFS
>> Server and format as xfs
>> >> >> 4.)
Create a
>> >> Glustervolume "volume
>> create xy transport rdma " (use
only
>> >> >> rdma)
>> >> >>
>> >> 5.) Connect
>> with the second IB
Port to a IB Switch
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cloudstack
>> >>
>> Hypervisor
Node:
>> >> >> 1.) Use RedHat, CentOS or Fedora (I use CentOS 5
>>
and
>> >> 6)
>> >> >> 2.) Use OFED driver from
https://www.openfabrics.org
>> >>
>> >> 3.) Import
>> >> the
Glustervolume
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ZFS Thin Volume ----
>> Infinband SRP
---->
>> >> GlusterFS ---- GFSVol rdma ---->
>> >> >> IB Switch
>> ---->
Clients
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The
>> >> ZFS and GlusterFS Server form a
Storage
>> unit connect direct with
>> >> 40Gbit
>> >> >> Infiniband
Point-to-Point You
>> do not feel that is a cable
>> >> between!
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Important: When you
>> have Infiniband use not IPoIB with
>>
>> iSCSI! If one
>> >> >> already
>> >> >>
>> has Infiniband then you
should also use the
>> >> advantage.
>> >> >> IPoIB
>> have a higher
Latency as iWarp SRP!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SRP =
>> >> usec
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> -- SRP --
>> >> >> local address: LID 0x01 QPN
0x44004b PSN
>> >>
>> 0xf3265b RKey 0x9804237c VAddr
>> >> >>
0x00000001dda000 remote address:
>> LID
>> >> 0x0a QPN 0x10004a PSN
0x44072e RKey
>> >> >> 0x1c0f115 VAddr
>> >>
>> 0x000000088e6000
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> #bytes #iterations t_min[usec] t_max[usec]
t_typical[usec]
>> >> >> 2
>> 1000
>> >> 1.29 125.30 1.31
>> >> >>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> -- IPoIB ---
>> >> >> [root@sv01sfogaa ~]# ping
10.200.0.10
>> >>
>> >> PING
>> >> 10.200.0.10 (10.200.0.10) 56(84)
bytes of data.
>> >> >> 64
>> bytes from
>> >> 10.200.0.10: icmp_seq=1
ttl=255 time=0.147 ms
>> >> >> 64
>> bytes from
>> >> 10.200.0.10:
icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.116 ms
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> When you put load
on
>> >> IPoIB then increases the latency that is not
>> good
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is my
>> >> recommendation for a simple
>>
GlusterFS Mirror:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Supermicro Server
>> >> with Intel
Hardware
>> and Expander Backplane
>> >> >> - 1x Crucal-M4 SSD Read
>>
>> Cache
>> >> >> - 2x
>> ZeusIOPs SSD Write cache (mirror)
>> >> >> -
SATA 24/7
>> >> Harddrives
>> >> >>
>> - LSI HBA 9207 or 9211
>> >> >> -
ConnectX-2 QDR Dualport
>> >> Infiniband
>> Adaper (HP refurbished with
full
>> >> >> warrany for 100$)
>> >> Importent >
>> Flash newest
Firmware from Mellanox!
>> >> >> - Mellanox IB
>> >> Swich
>> >> >>
>> -
Solaris 11
>> >> >> - GlusterFS 3.3 compiled with ib_verbs
>> >> >> -
>>
>>
>> Gluster Volume transport only rdma
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Throughput
>> >> constant up to 200
Mbyte/s >> more throughput with
>> more storage servers
>> >> or more
harddrives on jbod >> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Info:
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> - I have some
>> >> problems with infiniband
>> RDMA or
SRP with OpenIndiana or
>> >> >> Illumos or
>> >> Nexenta. Some
>>
adapters have a high latency or not a stable
>> >> >>
>> >> connection.
Use
>> Solaris that's the right way!
>> >> >> - OpenIndiana is Beta!
>>
>> Infiniband
>> ib_verbs works not or not fine!
>> >> >> - Use Solaris
11
>> >> Infiniband
>> ib_verbs are native and stable
>> >> >> - Don't
use Ubuntu Client
>> >> Server
>> for Infiniband! Use RedHat, Fedora
or
>> >> >> CentOS and install the
>> >>
>> right drivers from
>> >> >>
https://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/OFED/
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> You have
not SSD Cache? Disable at the ZFS Volume the sync!
>> >>
>>
Important!
>> >> >> You
>> >> >> loose Security for your Data but
some
>> protocols use
>> >> sync flags in
>> >> >> transport.
>> >> >>
Example NFS use by
>> default fsync. write
>> >> cache are not active.
NFS writes
>> >> >> data
>> direct to the Harddrive. For
>> >> Data
Security and Performance give
>> the
>> >> >> Storage Server a SSD
write
>> >> cache. ZFS works at default with
>> sync=standard
>> >> >>
that prevent write
>> >> holes. (COW System)
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hope
that I could help a little
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> Greeting from
>>
Germany
>> >> >> Andreas
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----
Ursprüngliche
>> Mail
>> >> -----
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Von: "Fabrice
Brazier"
>> >> >> An:
>> >>
>> cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23.
>> Oktober
>> >> 2012 09:55:15
>> >> >>
Betreff: RE: Primary Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> Hi Andreas,
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> Hello i just see your configuration, it seems
>> quite
interesting.
>> >> >> If i
>> >> understand well you want to build
some
>> zfs array on the backend.
>> >> >>
>> >> Export luns (probably
by iscsi over
>> infiniband) to you linux cluster,
>> >> and
>> >> >>
on
>> >> >> the linux
>> cluster you put glusterFS.
>> >> >> I can
understand
>> >> the point, with
>> that you can have very good
performance
>> >> >> and
>> >> >>
>> >> reliability
>> (zfs),
scalability and redundancy (gluster) for very low
>> >> cost.
>> >>
>>
>> So just one question, did you try the global namespace
>> >>
implementation
>> from
>> >> >> nexenta?
>> >> >> If yes can you tell me
what
>> >> configuration
>> is the best for you?
>> >> >> I mean the
fact you have a gluster
>> >> cluster
>> in the middle must impact
the
>> >> >> overral performance no?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
Fabrice
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Message d'origine-----
>> >> >> De :
Andreas
>> Huser
>> >> [mailto:ahuser@7five-edv.de] Envoyé : mardi 23
octobre
>> >> >>
>> 2012 05:40 À :
>> >>
cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> Objet :
>> Re: Primary
>>
>> Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> for Cloudstack i
use
>> Solaris 11 ZFS + GlusterFS
>> >> over Infiniband (RDMA).
>> >> >>
That
>> >> >>
>> gives the best performance and most
>> >> scalable
Storage.
>> >> >> I have
>> tasted some different solutions for
primary
>> >> Storage but the most
>> are
>> >> >> to expensive and for
a CloudStack Cluster
>> >> not economic or
>> have a poor
>> >> >>
performance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My Configuration:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
Storage Node:
>> >> >> Supermicro Server (Intel Hardware) with Solaris
11
>> with
>> >> SSD write and read
>> >> >> cache (read crucial-m4,
write ZeusIOPS)
>> GlusterFS
>> >> and dualport ConnectX
>> >> >>
40Gbit/s Infiniband adapter.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> I have
>> >> installed
GlusterFS direct on Solaris with a modified
>> code.
>> >> >> Want
you
>> >> build bigger systems for more then 50 VMs it is
>> better you
split
>> >> >> the
>> >> Solaris and GlusterFS with a separte
>>
headnode for GlusterFS
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That
>> >> looks like:
>> >> >>
Solaris ZFS
>> Backendstorage with a dataset Volume (Thin
>> >>
Provision) --> ( SRP
>> >> >>
>> Target attached direct without
Infiniband switch
>> >> to GF Node) -->
>> GlusterFS
>> >> >> Node the
srp target formatted with xfs
>> >> filesystem,
>> create a GlusterFS
>>
>> >> Volume --> ( Infiniband over a
>> >> Mellanox Port
>> Switch) -->
Cloudstack Node
>> >> >> mount glusterFS Volume over
>> >> RDMA
>> >>
>>
>>
>> >> >> For the Dataset Volume at the ZFS Storage, disable atime
and
>> >>
>> enable
>> >> >> compression.
>> >> >> (Space reclaim) With
compression you
>> can
>> >> shrink the ZFS Volume with command
>> >> >>
at Linux dd /dev/zero or
>> In a
>> >> Windows VM with sdelete That
gives you space
>> >> >> left on the
>> Primary
>> >> Storage for
deleted Files in a VM or for deleted vhd's
>> >> >>
>> or vm's in the
>>
>> cloudstack
>> >> >>
>> >> >> greeting Andreas
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mit freundlichen
>> >> Grüßen
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> Andreas Huser
>> >>
>> >> Geschäftsführer
>> >> >> System Engineer
/
>> >> Consultant
>> >> >> (Cisco
>> CSE, SMBAM, LCSE, ASAM)
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> >> >>
Zellerstraße 28 - 77654
>> >>
>> Offenburg
>> >> >> Tel: +49(781)
12786898
>> >> >> Mobil: +49(176) 10308549
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
ahuser@7five-edv.de
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
-----
>> Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> Von: "Outback
Dingo"
>> >> >> An:
>> cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >>
>>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23.
>> Oktober 2012 02:15:16
>> >> >> Betreff:
Re: Primary
>> >> Storage
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at
8:09 PM, Ivan
>> >> Rodriguezwrote:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>>
Solaris 11 ZFS and yes we tried different
>> >> setups, raids
>> levels
number >> of SSD cache, ARC zfs options etc etc
>> >> etc. >> >>
>>
Cheers >> >> >> VMWare ?? >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message