XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    XOSTOR hyperconvergence preview

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved XOSTOR
    446 Posts 47 Posters 479.2k Views 48 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • SwenS Offline
      Swen @ronan-a
      last edited by

      @ronan-a do you know anything about nic bandwidth limitations of xcp-ng? It looks like I am unable to use the full bandwidth of the 10Gbit connection between the nodes. I get 125 MBps which is the maximum of a 1Gbit NIC if I calulate correctly.
      If I do the test n 2 VMs on the storage the max bandwidth stays the same.

      A 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • A Offline
        abufrejoval Top contributor @Swen
        last edited by abufrejoval

        @Swen

        I've observed a similar issue, when I was testing the driver for the 2.5GBit/s USB3 NIC, while the system was running on a 1Gbit connection normally: somehow iperf3 gave me Gbit results even when I was clearly talking to the IP of the 2.5GBit port, which ethtool confirmed to be running at 2.5Gbit/s speed.

        Well except when I took the Gbit interface down to make sure nothing fishy was going on, the "2.5Gbit" connection went down with it.

        My explanation is that in fact it was talking to the Gbit port, which is configured as promiscous by Xcp-ng and 'hijacked' traffic to both IPs, so I didn't really reach the 2.5Gbit port.

        I can easily imagine something similar going on in your case.

        I haven't had time to test further, but I'm pretty sure you'll have to make the 10Gbit port fully known to Xcp to avoid issues with the promiscuity of the management interface or perhaps you can try with separated switches (or a cross connect cable) for the 10Gbit part, just to confirm the diagnose.

        SwenS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • SwenS Offline
          Swen @abufrejoval
          last edited by

          @abufrejoval thx for your feedback. I need to investigate this further. We already using a different switch for the 10Gbit interfaces with another IP subnet.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • SwenS Offline
            Swen
            last edited by

            @ronan-a I was unable to find some limitations regardings the bandwidth of an interface. Do you know anything about it?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A Offline
              abufrejoval Top contributor @Swen
              last edited by abufrejoval

              @Swen

              How do you measure? Do you measure disk I/O e.g. via Jens Axboe's wounderful fio tool or do you measure at the network level e.g. via iperf3first?

              I've gotten around 300MB/s write speeds inside a Windows VM using Crystal Disk Mark with 4-way LINSTOR replication using Xcp-ng running nested under VMware Workstation on Windows (Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core with plenty of RAM all NVMe storage).

              Iperf3 between these virtual Xcp-ng hosts will only yield around 5Gbit/s, so 300MB/s is rather better than I'd expect, given that each block is replicated 4 times. Reads on Crystal Disk Mark are better than 1.3GB/s as they don't suffer from write amplification and could actually be done round-robin (and it seems they are, too).

              But that's a nested virtualization setup, which is really just meant for functional failure testing, not for meaningful benchmarking.

              I haven't gotten around to using LINSTOR yet on my physical NUC8/10/11 cluster using 10Gbit NICs, but they give me close to 10Gbit/s with iperf3, while a Xeon-D 1542 based host only reaches about 5-6Gbit/s with budget Aquantia ACC107 NICs all around, that don't support much in terms of offload capabilities.

              On oVirt I used an MTU of 9000 to reach full 10Gbit bandwidth on all machines, but I haven't found any documentation on how to increase the MTU on the physical NICs in Xcp-ng yet.

              SwenS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • SwenS Offline
                Swen @abufrejoval
                last edited by

                @abufrejoval I am using dd on Ubuntu20 VMs on 3 ProLiant D360 servers with SSDs. I mounted 1 SSD directly to XCP-ng and 3 to linstor on each server. When I do a

                dd if=/dev/zero of=benchfile bs=4k count=2000000 && sync; rm benchfile
                

                on a VM using local storage I get around 185MB/s

                when I do the same on 1 VM on linstor storage I get around 125MB/s

                but when I do the test on 2 VM on linstor storage on the same XCP-ng host I get around 60MB/s each.

                Do me it looks like the NIC is the bottleneck, but please correct me if I am wrong.

                SwenS A 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • SwenS Offline
                  Swen @Swen
                  last edited by

                  @ronan-a another thing I found is that it linstor occupies more storage than expected. I created the sr with option 'thin'. I created 2 VMs each with 50GB disk. XCP-ng cente ris shoing me

                  238.7 GB used of 2.6 TB total (150 GB allocated)
                  

                  I would not expected that! I would expected less than 100 GB used and allocated.

                  ronan-aR 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ronan-aR Offline
                    ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @Swen
                    last edited by

                    @Swen Could you list the VDIs of your linstor SR please? 🙂

                    SwenS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • SwenS Offline
                      Swen @ronan-a
                      last edited by Swen

                      @ronan-a sure, do you mean the output of xe vdi-list?

                      ronan-aR 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • ronan-aR Offline
                        ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @Swen
                        last edited by

                        @Swen Yes, because this allocation value is indeed surprising.

                        SwenS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • SwenS Offline
                          Swen @ronan-a
                          last edited by

                          @ronan-a

                          [16:30 xcp-test1 ~]# xe vdi-list sr-uuid=77e5097a-c971-34e4-9506-7386a1e640b8
                          uuid ( RO)                : 23876ae4-27b3-4f2f-8c8b-eb623b2dc2e4
                                    name-label ( RW): base copy
                              name-description ( RW):
                                       sr-uuid ( RO): 77e5097a-c971-34e4-9506-7386a1e640b8
                                  virtual-size ( RO): 53687091200
                                      sharable ( RO): false
                                     read-only ( RO): true
                          
                          
                          uuid ( RO)                : 3a2ab3da-5507-4c7e-aa07-497c65b18ec1
                                    name-label ( RW): ubuntu20-linstor 0
                              name-description ( RW): Created by template provisioner
                                       sr-uuid ( RO): 77e5097a-c971-34e4-9506-7386a1e640b8
                                  virtual-size ( RO): 53687091200
                                      sharable ( RO): false
                                     read-only ( RO): false
                          
                          
                          uuid ( RO)                : 13a8fa52-9aa3-490b-86e0-eedb101128f9
                                    name-label ( RW): ubuntu20-linstor 0
                              name-description ( RW): Created by template provisioner
                                       sr-uuid ( RO): 77e5097a-c971-34e4-9506-7386a1e640b8
                                  virtual-size ( RO): 53687091200
                                      sharable ( RO): false
                                     read-only ( RO): false
                          

                          ok, the third vdi makes sense, cause I used storage-level fast disk clone to duplicate the VM. This explains the allocated value I guess, but not the used one.

                          Did you see my other question? Are you aware of any NIC constraints regarding throughput?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • SwenS Offline
                            Swen @ronan-a
                            last edited by

                            @ronan-a Wait a sec, maybe I found the root cause. I created a snapshot of a VM and deleted it. It created another base copy vdi and allocated space is now 200GB. MAybe I need to wait for the celanup job to take care of this?

                            ronan-aR 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • ronan-aR Offline
                              ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @Swen
                              last edited by ronan-a

                              @Swen The 150GiB are related to the base copy VDI yes. 😉
                              Of course this value is just the maximum amount of data used because you use the thin LVM plugin. (It's not the real used data.)

                              Regarding NIC, I didn't encounter any problems during my tests. The best way to measure the DRBD performance is to use fio directly in a VM and also on the host with a DRBD volume.

                              The difference between local storage and DRBD is not a surprise:

                              • DRBD must sync the data between nodes
                              • DRBD is on top of LVM
                              SwenS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • A Offline
                                abufrejoval Top contributor @Swen
                                last edited by

                                @Swen
                                Writing zeros should result in nothing written with thin allocation (or dedup and compression): that's why I am hesitant to use /dev/zero as a source.

                                Of course /dev/random could require to much of an overhead, depending on the quality and implementation which is why I like to use fio: a bit of initial effort to know and understand the tool, but much better control, especially when it comes to dealing with an OS that tries to be smart.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • SwenS Offline
                                  Swen @ronan-a
                                  last edited by

                                  @ronan-a did you use 10Gbit interfaces for linstor traffic? I am aware that there is a difference between local storage and DRBD, but if this difference is that high, linstor is not really interesting for high performance workloads. I need to be sure that the root cause it not related to my setup.

                                  @ronan-a @abufrejoval which exact fio params are you using to test your environment and can you copy some numbers, so we can compare them?

                                  A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • olivierlambertO Offline
                                    olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                    last edited by olivierlambert

                                    We mostly use those displayed in this blog post: https://smcleod.net/tech/2016/04/29/benchmarking-io/

                                    edit: depending on the storage, iodepth can be increased.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • A Offline
                                      abufrejoval Top contributor @Swen
                                      last edited by

                                      @Swen

                                      There is obviously tons of variations....

                                      I've used this fio file a lot to quickly gain an understanding of how a bit of storage performs.

                                      Basically it only uses a small 100MB file, but tells the OS to avoid buffering and then goes over that with a mix of reads and writes, mostly transitioning between block size, essentially going from super random to almost sequential in a single run.

                                      It's helped me find issues with Gluster, identify network bandwidth issues or even find deteriorated RAIDs with a bad BBU. Creates the test file in the working directiory unless changed.

                                      [global]
                                      filename=fio.file
                                      ioengine=libaio
                                      rw=randrw
                                      size=100m
                                      norandommap
                                      direct=1
                                      iodepth=1
                                      time_based
                                      runtime=10
                                      [B512]
                                      bs=512
                                      stonewall
                                      [B1k]
                                      bs=1k
                                      stonewall
                                      [B2k]
                                      bs=2k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b4k]
                                      bs=4k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b8k]
                                      bs=8k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b16k]
                                      bs=16k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b32k]
                                      bs=32k
                                      [b64k]
                                      bs=64k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b512k]
                                      bs=512k
                                      stonewall
                                      [b1m]
                                      bs=1m
                                      stonewall
                                      

                                      Numbers: It should approach the network bandwidth towards the end (potentially divided by write amplification).

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • dumarjoD Offline
                                        dumarjo @ronan-a
                                        last edited by

                                        @ronan-a Hi,

                                        I tested your branch and now the new added hosts to the pool are now attached to the XOSTOR. This is nice !

                                        I have looked at the code, but I'm not sure if in the current state of your branch we can add a disk on the new host and update the replication ? I think not... but just to be sure.

                                        ronan-aR 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • ronan-aR Offline
                                          ronan-a Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @dumarjo
                                          last edited by

                                          @dumarjo linstor resource-group modify --place-count=X should be enough to update the replication. 🙂 I'm not sure to add a command in the plugin now (but probably yes for XOA integration).

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • Maelstrom96M Offline
                                            Maelstrom96 @ronan-a
                                            last edited by

                                            @ronan-a said in XOSTOR hyperconvergence preview:

                                            For some VMs that have built-in software replication/HA, like DBs, it might be prefered to have replication=1 set for the VDI.

                                            We can authorize this behavior without having other SRs. It would suffice to pass a replication parameter for this particular VDI when it is created. So thank you for this feedback. I think we must implement this use case for the future.

                                            @ronan-a Have anything been done regarding this feature? I scanned the thread, but I couldn't really find anything related to a new VDI option.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post