Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 70, Issue 7

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 70, Issue 7

James Chang-3
Hi,

   Did you have plan to try another NIC (i.e. INTEL em?) and turn on
polling mode?
I think you can  the following thing
1.use asynchronous I/O on Your FreeBSD 7.1 box
2.enable options ZERO_COPY_SOCKETS

Best Regards!


                  James Chang

2008/12/21  <[hidden email]>:

> Send freebsd-performance mailing list submissions to
>        [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of freebsd-performance digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning (Paul Patterson)  (Michelle Li)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: Michelle Li <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning (Paul Patterson)
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> ...and the dmesg?
>
> please post
>
> [hidden email] wrote: Send freebsd-performance mailing list submissions to
>  [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>  http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>  [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>  [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of freebsd-performance digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning (Paul Patterson)
>   2. Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning (Paul Patterson)
>   3. Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning (Paul Patterson)
>   4. intel i7 and Hyperthreading (Mike Tancsa)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:47:59 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
> To: Paul Patterson
> ,
>  [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
> as promised, the parameter tuning I have on the box (does anyone see anything wrong?)
>
> /boot/loader.conf
>
> kern.hz="100"
> vm.kmem_size_max="1536M"
> vm.kmem_size="1536M"
> vfs.zfs.prefetch_disble=1
>
> /etc/sysctl.conf
>
> kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216
> kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768
> kern.ipc.somaxconn=8192
> kern.maxfiles=65536
> kern.maxfilesperproc=32768
> kern.mxvnodes=600000
> net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
> net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
> net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=0
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=16384
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216
> net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=1
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcpsendbuf_inc=8192
> net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
> net.inet.udp.maxdgram=57344
> net.inet.udp.recvspace=65536
> net.local.stream.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04:37 PM
> Subject: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
> Hi,
>
> I just set up my first machine with ZFS.  (First, ZFS is nothing short of amazing)  I'm running FreeBSD 7.1-RC1 as an NFS server with ZFS striped across two volumes (just testing throughput for now.)  Anyhow, I was benching this box, 4GB or RAM, the volume is on 2x146 GB SAS 10K rpm drives and it's an HP Proliant DL360 with dual Gb interfaces. (device bce)
>
> Now, I believe that I have tuned this box to the hilt with all the parameters that I can think of (it's at work right now so I'll cut and paste all the sysctls and loader.conf parameters for ZFS and networking) and it still seems to have some type of bottleneck.
>
> I have two Debian Linux clients that I use to bench with.  I run a script that makes calls that writes to the NFS device and, after about 30 minutes, starts to delete the initial data and follow behind writing and deleting.
>
> Here's what's happening:  The "other" machine is a NetAPP.  It's got 1GB of RAM and it's running RAID DP with 2 parity drives and 6 data drives, all SATA 750 GB 7200 RPM drives with dual Gb interfaces.
>
> The benchmark script manages to write lots of little (all less than 30KB) files at a rate of 11,000 per minute, however, after 30 minutes, when it starts deleting, the throughput on write goes to 9500 and deletion is 6000 per minute.  If I turn on the second node, I get 17,000 writing combined with about 11,000 deletions combined.  One way or another, this will overflow in time.  Not good.
>
> Now, on to my pet project. :-)  The FreeBSD/ZFS server is only able to maintain about 3500 writes per minute but also deletes at the same rate!  (I would expect deletion to be at least as fast as writing)  The drives are running at only 20-35% while this is going on and only putting down about 4-5 MB/sec each.  So, at 1Gb or ~92MB/sec theoretical max (is that about right?) There's something wrong somewhere.  I'm assuming it's the network.  (I'll post all the tunings tomorrow.)
>
> Thinking something wrong, I mounted only one client to each server (they are identical clients and the same configuration as the FreeBSD box).  I did a simple stream of:  dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/nfs bs=1m count=1000.  The FreeBSD box wins?!  It cranked up the drives to 45-50 MB/sec each and balanced them perfectly on transactions/sec KB/sec, etc from systat -vm. (Woohoo!)  The NetAPPs CPU was at over 35-40% constantly, (it does that while benching, too)
>
> I'll post the NetAPP finding tomorrow as I forgot it for now.
>
> As for the client mounting, it was with the options:  nfsvers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,hard,intr,async,noatime
>
> I'm trying to figure out why, when running this benchmark, can the NetAPP with WAFL nearly triple the FreeBSD/ZFS box.
>
> Also, I'm having something strange happen when I try to mount the disk from the FreeBSD server versus the NetAPP.  The FreeBSD server will sometimes RPC timeout.  Mounting the NetAPP is instantaneous.
>
> That's the beginning.  If I have a list of things to check tomorrow, I will.  I'd like to see the little machine that could kick the NetAPPs butt.  (No offense to NetAPP. :-) )
>
> Thank you for reading,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:03:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
> To: Paul Patterson
> ,
>  [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello all,
>
> I guess I've got to send this as I've already had about 5 responses claiming the same thing.  This is not a disk bottleneck.  The ZFS partition is capable of performing at the theoretical max of the drives.  The machine is performing at less than 5 MB combined.  I'm assuming that this is a problem with the NFSv3 throughput.  I just 'dd'  1000 1MB records (about 1GB) from the clients to their respective servers:
>
> Client 1 to NetAPP:  3 tests for 45.9, 45.1, 46.1   Pretty consistent
> Client 2 to FreeBSD/ZFS:  3 test for 29.7, 12.5, 19.1  NOT consistent  (also, the drives were lucky to hit 12% busy.
>
> I'm about to mount these servers to each client and see if there's a variation (although they are hw configured the same and bought the same time.)
>
> I'll write after this.  However, if more people could review the configurations below and see if there's anything glaring....  However, the lack of consistency shows something is wrong network wise.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: Paul Patterson
> ; [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:47:59 AM
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
>
> Hi,
>
> as promised, the parameter tuning I have on the box (does anyone see anything wrong?)
>
> /boot/loader.conf
>
> kern.hz="100"
> vm.kmem_size_max="1536M"
> vm.kmem_size="1536M"
> vfs.zfs.prefetch_disble=1
>
> /etc/sysctl.conf
>
> kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216
> kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768
> kern.ipc.somaxconn=8192
> kern.maxfiles=65536
> kern.maxfilesperproc=32768
> kern.mxvnodes=600000
> net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
> net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
> net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=0
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=16384
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216
> net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=1
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcpsendbuf_inc=8192
> net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
> net.inet.udp.maxdgram=57344
> net.inet.udp.recvspace=65536
> net.local.stream.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04:37 PM
> Subject: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
> Hi,
>
> I just set up my first machine with ZFS.  (First, ZFS is nothing short of amazing)  I'm running FreeBSD 7.1-RC1 as an NFS server with ZFS striped across two volumes (just testing throughput for now.)  Anyhow, I was benching this box, 4GB or RAM, the volume is on 2x146 GB SAS 10K rpm drives and it's an HP Proliant DL360 with dual Gb interfaces. (device bce)
>
> Now, I believe that I have tuned this box to the hilt with all the parameters that I can think of (it's at work right now so I'll cut and paste all the sysctls and loader.conf parameters for ZFS and networking) and it still seems to have some type of bottleneck.
>
> I have two Debian Linux clients that I use to bench with.  I run a script that makes calls that writes to the NFS device and, after about 30 minutes, starts to delete the initial data and follow behind writing and deleting.
>
> Here's what's happening:  The "other" machine is a NetAPP.  It's got 1GB of RAM and it's running RAID DP with 2 parity drives and 6 data drives, all SATA 750 GB 7200 RPM drives with dual Gb interfaces.
>
> The benchmark script manages to write lots of little (all less than 30KB) files at a rate of 11,000 per minute, however, after 30 minutes, when it starts deleting, the throughput on write goes to 9500 and deletion is 6000 per minute.  If I turn on the second node, I get 17,000 writing combined with about 11,000 deletions combined.  One way or another, this will overflow in time.  Not good.
>
> Now, on to my pet project. :-)  The FreeBSD/ZFS server is only able to maintain about 3500 writes per minute but also deletes at the same rate!  (I would expect deletion to be at least as fast as writing)  The drives are running at only 20-35% while this is going on and only putting down about 4-5 MB/sec each.  So, at 1Gb or ~92MB/sec theoretical max (is that about right?) There's something wrong somewhere.  I'm assuming it's the network.  (I'll post all the tunings tomorrow.)
>
> Thinking something wrong, I mounted only one client to each server (they are identical clients and the same configuration as the FreeBSD box).  I did a simple stream of:  dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/nfs bs=1m count=1000.  The FreeBSD box wins?!  It cranked up the drives to 45-50 MB/sec each and balanced them perfectly on transactions/sec KB/sec, etc from systat -vm. (Woohoo!)  The NetAPPs CPU was at over 35-40% constantly, (it does that while benching, too)
>
> I'll post the NetAPP finding tomorrow as I forgot it for now.
>
> As for the client mounting, it was with the options:  nfsvers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,hard,intr,async,noatime
>
> I'm trying to figure out why, when running this benchmark, can the NetAPP with WAFL nearly triple the FreeBSD/ZFS box.
>
> Also, I'm having something strange happen when I try to mount the disk from the FreeBSD server versus the NetAPP.  The FreeBSD server will sometimes RPC timeout.  Mounting the NetAPP is instantaneous.
>
> That's the beginning.  If I have a list of things to check tomorrow, I will.  I'd like to see the little machine that could kick the NetAPPs butt.  (No offense to NetAPP. :-) )
>
> Thank you for reading,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:59:54 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
> To: Paul Patterson
> ,
>  [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
> Well, I got some input on things:
>
> kern.ipc.somaxconn=32768
> net.inet.tcp.mssdflt=1460
>
> And for fstab
>
> rw,tcp,intr,noatime,nfsv3,-w=65536,-r=65536
>
> I tried turning on polling with ifconfig bce0 polling, however, I didn't see it in ifconfig bce0 so I don't believe it to be active or the card doesn't support it.
>
> aI also removed async from the mounts.  These had a detrimental affect on the FreeBSD server.  I now get 64K per transfer (system -vm) but I'm still only getting about 4MB/sec on the disks and their utilization has dropped to about 5%.  Throughput from both clients is ~8.5MB/sec.  The tests were run separately.  The NetAPP on each host was over 48.5 MB/sec.
>
> The FreeBSD host still has about 2 GB free.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: Paul Patterson
> ; [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 1:03:14 PM
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
> Hello all,
>
> I guess I've got to send this as I've already had about 5 responses claiming the same thing.  This is not a disk bottleneck.  The ZFS partition is capable of performing at the theoretical max of the drives.  The machine is performing at less than 5 MB combined.  I'm assuming that this is a problem with the NFSv3 throughput.  I just 'dd'  1000 1MB records (about 1GB) from the clients to their respective servers:
>
> Client 1 to NetAPP:  3 tests for 45.9, 45.1, 46.1   Pretty consistent
> Client 2 to FreeBSD/ZFS:  3 test for 29.7, 12.5, 19.1  NOT consistent  (also, the drives were lucky to hit 12% busy.
>
> I'm about to mount these servers to each client and see if there's a variation (although they are hw configured the same and bought the same time.)
>
> I'll write after this.  However, if more people could review the configurations below and see if there's anything glaring....  However, the lack of consistency shows something is wrong network wise.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: Paul Patterson
> ; [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:47:59 AM
> Subject: Re: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
>
> Hi,
>
> as promised, the parameter tuning I have on the box (does anyone see anything wrong?)
>
> /boot/loader.conf
>
> kern.hz="100"
> vm.kmem_size_max="1536M"
> vm.kmem_size="1536M"
> vfs.zfs.prefetch_disble=1
>
> /etc/sysctl.conf
>
> kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216
> kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768
> kern.ipc.somaxconn=8192
> kern.maxfiles=65536
> kern.maxfilesperproc=32768
> kern.mxvnodes=600000
> net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
> net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
> net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=0
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=16384
> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216
> net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=1
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_auto=1
> net.inet.tcpsendbuf_inc=8192
> net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
> net.inet.udp.maxdgram=57344
> net.inet.udp.recvspace=65536
> net.local.stream.recvspace=65536
> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Patterson
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04:37 PM
> Subject: ZFS, NFS and Network tuning
>
> Hi,
>
> I just set up my first machine with ZFS.  (First, ZFS is nothing short of amazing)  I'm running FreeBSD 7.1-RC1 as an NFS server with ZFS striped across two volumes (just testing throughput for now.)  Anyhow, I was benching this box, 4GB or RAM, the volume is on 2x146 GB SAS 10K rpm drives and it's an HP Proliant DL360 with dual Gb interfaces. (device bce)
>
> Now, I believe that I have tuned this box to the hilt with all the parameters that I can think of (it's at work right now so I'll cut and paste all the sysctls and loader.conf parameters for ZFS and networking) and it still seems to have some type of bottleneck.
>
> I have two Debian Linux clients that I use to bench with.  I run a script that makes calls that writes to the NFS device and, after about 30 minutes, starts to delete the initial data and follow behind writing and deleting.
>
> Here's what's happening:  The "other" machine is a NetAPP.  It's got 1GB of RAM and it's running RAID DP with 2 parity drives and 6 data drives, all SATA 750 GB 7200 RPM drives with dual Gb interfaces.
>
> The benchmark script manages to write lots of little (all less than 30KB) files at a rate of 11,000 per minute, however, after 30 minutes, when it starts deleting, the throughput on write goes to 9500 and deletion is 6000 per minute.  If I turn on the second node, I get 17,000 writing combined with about 11,000 deletions combined.  One way or another, this will overflow in time.  Not good.
>
> Now, on to my pet project. :-)  The FreeBSD/ZFS server is only able to maintain about 3500 writes per minute but also deletes at the same rate!  (I would expect deletion to be at least as fast as writing)  The drives are running at only 20-35% while this is going on and only putting down about 4-5 MB/sec each.  So, at 1Gb or ~92MB/sec theoretical max (is that about right?) There's something wrong somewhere.  I'm assuming it's the network.  (I'll post all the tunings tomorrow.)
>
> Thinking something wrong, I mounted only one client to each server (they are identical clients and the same configuration as the FreeBSD box).  I did a simple stream of:  dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/nfs bs=1m count=1000.  The FreeBSD box wins?!  It cranked up the drives to 45-50 MB/sec each and balanced them perfectly on transactions/sec KB/sec, etc from systat -vm. (Woohoo!)  The NetAPPs CPU was at over 35-40% constantly, (it does that while benching, too)
>
> I'll post the NetAPP finding tomorrow as I forgot it for now.
>
> As for the client mounting, it was with the options:  nfsvers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,hard,intr,async,noatime
>
> I'm trying to figure out why, when running this benchmark, can the NetAPP with WAFL nearly triple the FreeBSD/ZFS box.
>
> Also, I'm having something strange happen when I try to mount the disk from the FreeBSD server versus the NetAPP.  The FreeBSD server will sometimes RPC timeout.  Mounting the NetAPP is instantaneous.
>
> That's the beginning.  If I have a list of things to check tomorrow, I will.  I'd like to see the little machine that could kick the NetAPPs butt.  (No offense to NetAPP. :-) )
>
> Thank you for reading,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:01:46 -0500
> From: Mike Tancsa
> Subject: intel i7 and Hyperthreading
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Just got our first board to play around with and unlike in the past,
> having hyperthreading enabled seems to help performance.... At least
> in buildworld tests.
>
> doing a make -j4 vs -j6 make -j8 vs -j10 gives
>
> -j  buildworld time    % improvement over -j4
> 4       13:57
> 6       12:11            13%
> 8       11:32            18%
> 10      11:43            17%
>
>
> dmesg below of the hardware... The CPU seems to run fairly cool, but
> the board has a lot of nasty hot heatsinks
>
> eg. running 8 burnP6 procs
>
> 0[ns3c]# sysctl -a | grep temperature
> dev.cpu.0.temperature: 67
> dev.cpu.1.temperature: 67
> dev.cpu.2.temperature: 65
> dev.cpu.3.temperature: 65
> dev.cpu.4.temperature: 66
> dev.cpu.5.temperature: 66
> dev.cpu.6.temperature: 64
> dev.cpu.7.temperature: 64
> 0[ns3c]#
>
> vs idle
>
> dev.cpu.0.temperature: 46
> dev.cpu.1.temperature: 46
> dev.cpu.2.temperature: 42
> dev.cpu.3.temperature: 42
> dev.cpu.4.temperature: 44
> dev.cpu.5.temperature: 44
> dev.cpu.6.temperature: 40
> dev.cpu.7.temperature: 40
>
> Copyright (c) 1992-2008 The FreeBSD Project.
> Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
>         The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation.
> FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Fri Dec 19 19:48:15 EST 2008
>     [hidden email]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/recycle
> Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
> End of freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 70, Issue 7
> **************************************************
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"