Re: [Xen-users] Aoe or iScsi???

[Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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