Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Yes,
But I was getting the same performance with the nodes in Standalone/Primary. Also, if the the lower level physical device, and the network link perform at 3x that rate, then what's the bottle neck? Is this the kind of performance loss I should expect from DRBD?
~Noah
On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:29 AM, <Robert.Koeppl at knapp.com<mailto:Robert.Koeppl at knapp.com>> <Robert.Koeppl at knapp.com<mailto:Robert.Koeppl at knapp.com>> wrote:
Hi!
You are getting about 4 Gbit/s actual throughput, which is not that bad, but could be better. 1,25 Gbyte/s would be the theoretical maximum of your interlink without any overhead latency.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Robert Köppl
Systemadministration
KNAPP Systemintegration GmbH
Waltenbachstraße 9
8700 Leoben, Austria
Phone: +43 3842 805-910
Fax: +43 3842 82930-500
robert.koeppl at knapp.com<mailto:robert.koeppl at knapp.com>
www.KNAPP.com<http://www.KNAPP.com>
Commercial register number: FN 138870x
Commercial register court: Leoben
The information in this e-mail (including any attachment) is confidential and intended to be for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you have received the e-mail by mistake, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of the e-mail is prohibited, and you must delete the e-mail from your system. As e-mail can be changed electronically KNAPP assumes no responsibility for any alteration to this e-mail or its attachments. KNAPP has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for virus. However, KNAPP does not accept any liability for damage sustained as a result of such attachment being virus infected and strongly recommend that you carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment.
Noah Mehl <noah at tritonlimited.com<mailto:noah at tritonlimited.com>>
Gesendet von: drbd-user-bounces at lists.linbit.com<mailto:drbd-user-bounces at lists.linbit.com>
21.06.2011 03:30
An
"drbd-user at lists.linbit.com<mailto:drbd-user at lists.linbit.com>" <drbd-user at lists.linbit.com<mailto:drbd-user at lists.linbit.com>>
Kopie
Thema
Re: [DRBD-user] Poor DRBD performance, HELP!
On Jun 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Cristian Mammoli - Apra Sistemi wrote:
> On 06/20/2011 07:16 AM, Noah Mehl wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Noah Mehl wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/17/2011 05:04 PM, Noah Mehl wrote:
>>>>> Below is the script I ran to do the performance testing. I basically took the script from the user guide and removed the oflag=direct,
>>>>
>>>> ... which means that dd wrote to your page cache (read: RAM). At this
>>>> point, you started kidding yourself about your performance.
>>>
>>> I do have a question here: the total size of the dd write was 64GB, twice the amount of system RAM, does this still apply?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> because when it was in there, it brought the performance down to 26MB/s (not really my focus here, but maybe related?).
>>>>
>>>> "Related" doesn't begin to describe it.
>>>>
>>>> Rerun the tests with oflag=direct and then repost them.
>>>
>>> Florian,
>>>
>>> I apologize for posting again without seeing your reply. I took the script directly from the user guide:
>>>
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> TEST_RESOURCE=r0
>>> TEST_DEVICE=$(drbdadm sh-dev $TEST_RESOURCE)
>>> TEST_LL_DEVICE=$(drbdadm sh-ll-dev $TEST_RESOURCE)
>>> drbdadm primary $TEST_RESOURCE
>>> for i in $(seq 5); do
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=$TEST_DEVICE bs=512M count=1 oflag=direct
>>> done
>>> drbdadm down $TEST_RESOURCE
>>> for i in $(seq 5); do
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=$TEST_LL_DEVICE bs=512M count=1 oflag=direct
>>> done
>>>
>>> Here are the results:
>>>
>>> 1+0 records in
>>> 1+0 records out
>>> 536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 0.911252 s, 589 MB/s
> [...]
>
> If your controller has a BBU change the write policy to writeback and
> disable flushes in your drbd.conf
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Cristian Mammoli
> APRA SISTEMI srl
> Via Brodolini,6 Jesi (AN)
> tel dir. +390731719822
>
> Web www.apra.it<http://www.apra.it>
> e-mail c.mammoli at apra.it<mailto:c.mammoli at apra.it>
> _______________________________________________
> drbd-user mailing list
> drbd-user at lists.linbit.com<mailto:drbd-user at lists.linbit.com>
> http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
After taking many users suggestions into play, here's where I am now. I've done the iperf between the machines:
[root at storageb ~]# iperf -c 10.0.100.241
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.100.241, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 27.8 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.0.100.242 port 57982 connected with 10.0.100.241 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.5 GBytes 9.86 Gbits/sec
As you can see the network connectivity between the machines should not be a bottleneck. Unless I'm running the wrong test, or in the wrong way. Comments are definitely welcome here.
I update my resource config to remove flushes because my controller is set to writeback:
# begin resource drbd0
resource r0 {
protocol C;
disk {
no-disk-flushes;
no-md-flushes;
}
startup {
wfc-timeout 15;
degr-wfc-timeout 60;
}
net {
allow-two-primaries;
after-sb-0pri discard-zero-changes;
after-sb-1pri discard-secondary;
after-sb-2pri disconnect;
}
syncer {
}
on storagea {
device /dev/drbd0;
disk /dev/sda1;
address 10.0.100.241:7788;
meta-disk internal;
}
on storageb {
device /dev/drbd0;
disk /dev/sda1;
address 10.0.100.242:7788;
meta-disk internal;
}
}
I've connected and synced the other node:
version: 8.3.8.1 (api:88/proto:86-94)
GIT-hash: 0d8589fcc32c874df57c930ca1691399b55ec893 build by gardner@, 2011-05-21 19:18:16
0: cs:Connected ro:Primary/Secondary ds:UpToDate/UpToDate C r----
ns:1460706824 nr:0 dw:671088640 dr:2114869272 al:163840 bm:210874 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 ep:1 wo:b oos:0
I've update the test script to include the oflag=direct in dd. Also, I expanded the test writes to 64GB, twice the system ram, and 64 times the controller ram:
#!/bin/bash
TEST_RESOURCE=r0
TEST_DEVICE=$(drbdadm sh-dev $TEST_RESOURCE)
TEST_LL_DEVICE=$(drbdadm sh-ll-dev $TEST_RESOURCE)
drbdadm primary $TEST_RESOURCE
for i in $(seq 5); do
dd if=/dev/zero of=$TEST_DEVICE bs=1G count=64 oflag=direct
done
drbdadm down $TEST_RESOURCE
for i in $(seq 5); do
dd if=/dev/zero of=$TEST_LL_DEVICE bs=1G count=64 oflag=direct
done
And this is the result:
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 152.376 s, 451 MB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 148.863 s, 462 MB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 152.587 s, 450 MB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 152.661 s, 450 MB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 148.099 s, 464 MB/s
0: State change failed: (-12) Device is held open by someone
Command 'drbdsetup 0 down' terminated with exit code 11
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 52.5957 s, 1.3 GB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 56.9315 s, 1.2 GB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 57.5803 s, 1.2 GB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 52.4276 s, 1.3 GB/s
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
68719476736 bytes (69 GB) copied, 52.8235 s, 1.3 GB/s
I'm getting a huge performance difference between the drbd resource and the lower level device. Is this what I should expect?
~Noah
Scanned for viruses and content by the Tranet Spam Sentinel service.
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
drbd-user at lists.linbit.com<mailto:drbd-user at lists.linbit.com>
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
<ATT00001..txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20110621/32aa36b9/attachment.htm>