<div dir="ltr">"I suspect that this OSC is using an OSS that is under heavier load."<div><br></div><div>If you want to confirm this, it seems like you could create files with striping parameters such that you have a single file on each OSS. Well, I know you can make stripe=1 so it's only on one OSS but can you control/query on *which* OSS is the stripe? Assuming you can, then you just benchmark performance for each file (i.e. OSS) and you can discover more explicitly whether you have a slow OSS. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, John Bauer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bauerj@iodoctors.com" target="_blank">bauerj@iodoctors.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Rick,<br>
<br>
Thanks for reply. Also thanks to Patrick Farrell for making me
rethink this.<br>
<br>
I am coming to believe that it is an OSS issue. Every time I run
this job, the first pass of dd is slow, which I now attribute to all
the OSSs<br>
needing to initially read the data in from disk to OSS cache. If
the subsequent passes of dd get back soon enough I then observe good
performance.<br>
If not, performance goes back to initial rates. <br>
<br>
Inspecting the individual wait times for each of the dd reads for
one of the poor performing dd passes, <br>
and correlating them to the OSC that fulfills each individual dd
read, I see that 75% of the wait time is from the a single OSC. I
suspect that this OSC is<br>
using an OSS that is under heavier load.<br>
<br>
I don't have access to the OSS so I cant report on the Lustre
settings. I think the client side max cached is 50% of memory.<br>
<br>
After speaking with Doug Petesch of Cray, I though I would look
into numa effects on this job. I now also monitor the contents of<br>
<b><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">/sys/devices/system/node/node?<wbr>/meminfo
</font></b><br>
and ran the job with <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><b>numactl
--cpunodebind=0</b></font><br>
Interestingly enough, I now sometimes get dd transfer rates of
2.2GiB/s. Plotting the .../node?/meminfo[FilePages] value versus
time for the 2 cpunodes shows that the<br>
data is now mostly placed on node0. Unfortunately, the variable
rates still remain, as one would expect if it is an OSS caching
issue, but the poor performance is also better.<br>
<br>
Resulting plot with all <b><font face="Courier New, Courier,
monospace">numactl --cpunodebind=0</font></b><br>
<img src="cid:part1.24AFC345.27F3E5D3@iodoctors.com" alt=""><br>
<br>
Resulting plots with <b><font face="Courier New, Courier,
monospace">numactl --cpunodebind=x</font></b> where x alternates
between 0 and 1 for each subsequent dd pass. And indeed, the file
pages migrate between cpunodes.<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part2.B046B153.A43A32B4@iodoctors.com" alt=""><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-cite-prefix">On 4/5/2018 9:22 AM, Mohr Jr, Richard
Frank (Rick Mohr) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>John,
I had a couple of thoughts (though not sure if they are directly relevant to your performance issue):
1) Do you know what caching settings are applied on the lustre servers? This could have an impact on performance, especially if your tests are being run while others are doing IO on the system.
2) It looks like there is a parameter called llite.<fsname>.max_cached_mb that controls how much client side data is cached. According to the manual, the default value is 3/4 of the host’s RAM (which would be 48GB in your case). I don’t know why the cache seems to be used unevenly between your 4 OSTs, but it might explain why the cache for some OSTs decrease when others increase.
--
Rick Mohr
Senior HPC System Administrator
National Institute for Computational Sciences
<a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nics.tennessee.edu" target="_blank">http://www.nics.tennessee.edu</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Apr 2, 2018, at 8:06 PM, John Bauer <a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bauerj@iodoctors.com" target="_blank"><bauerj@iodoctors.com></a> wrote:
I am running dd 10 times consecutively to read a 64GB file ( stripeCount=4 stripeSize=4M ) on a Lustre client(version 2.10.3) that has 64GB of memory.
The client node was dedicated.
for pass in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
do
of=/dev/null if=${file} count=128000 bs=512K
done
Instrumentation of the I/O from dd reveals varying performance. In the plot below, the bottom frame has wall time
on the X axis, and file position of the dd reads on the Y axis, with a dot plotted at the wall time and starting file position of every read.
The slopes of the lines indicate the data transfer rate, which vary from 475MB/s to 1.5GB/s. The last 2 passes have sharp breaks
in the performance, one with increasing performance, and one with decreasing performance.
The top frame indicates the amount of memory used by each of the file's 4 OSCs over the course of the 10 dd runs. Nothing terribly odd here except that
one of the OSC's eventually has its entire stripe ( 16GB ) cached and then never gives any up.
I should mention that the file system has 320 OSTs. I found LU-6370 which eventually started discussing LRU management issues on systems with high
numbers of OST's leading to reduced RPC sizes.
Any explanations for the varying performance?
Thanks,
John
<johbmffmkkegkbkh.png>
--
I/O Doctors, LLC
507-766-0378
<a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bauerj@iodoctors.com" target="_blank">bauerj@iodoctors.com</a>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
<a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" target="_blank">lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.<wbr>org</a>
<a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org" target="_blank">http://lists.lustre.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-<wbr>lustre.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-signature" cols="72">--
I/O Doctors, LLC
507-766-0378
<a class="m_-6103604654120049206moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bauerj@iodoctors.com" target="_blank">bauerj@iodoctors.com</a></pre>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
lustre-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org">lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.lustre.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-<wbr>lustre.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>