Remove backup bottleneck: please report
For people who want to test a potential XO backup speed bottleneck (in fact, XCP-ng bottlneck):
- in XO, disconnect your pool, edit the master URL by adding "http://" before the IP/hostname
- try again a backup
Note: it won't be encrypted anymore, but could be interesting to see that stunnel is a potential bottleneck on the dom0
Someone reported that it doubled the backup speed (in delta backup). It's due to how HTTPS is created in XCP-ng/XenServer (XAPI HTTP lib is very old and crappy, without HTTPS support, so they added
stunnelon top, which is often a bottleneck).
We can search for a solution if we are sure it's one of the bottlneck Please test and report!
JCastang last edited by
For history purpose (as forums will be merged), I copy here my post on XOA Forums:
We are currently evaluating XOA as a management interface to XCP/XS and espacially as a backup solution.
As delta backup is a really good solution, the main drawback we saw is the "export bottleneck".
Using XAPI to export VM/VHD is a good thing (much more reliable than other backup solutions) there are somme huge bottlenecks.
The one that we disscussed with XOA support this morning is the stunnel thing.
By default all connections to XAPI is sent trough HTTPS and stunnel is the one in charge of encryption.
In our env, we mostly get between 60/90MB per sec as backup speed with XOA (Network is 10G and disks are SSD).
So we tested connection (using tricky conf) in HTTP to Xen pool in order to get some improvments.
As soon as we switched to HTTP, backup speed increased (+++). We switched to more than 200MB per sec.
So (this is already known) stunnel is a huge bootleneck.
Removing it reduces security (sic) but increases perfs. Security can be mitigated by the overall security of the relying network (like internal or isolated).
Some discussions have been pointed on Citrix forums about the fact that stunnel is an old version and can be updated.
"Recent" versions are known to have "parallel" encryption to increase performance.
As a "stupid" test we updated stunnel (to (5.44) on a fresh install of XCP to test if it changes anything.
But we do not noticed any improvments.
We will make some tests later to see if a new version of stunnel can help to speedup things.
Original post was here:
JCastang last edited by
Last update before one week holydays
I found that in stunnel by default on XCP/XC compression is set to "zlib" which will compress all data flow.
After some investigation it seems that XOA HTTP client to XAPI do not implement compression.
So disabling it as no effect.
Some tests have shown no effective difference in disabling zlib in stunnel.
@olivierlambert I do the http thing since we started at work with xenorchestra backup. Works fine for some years now.
Slugger last edited by
I just made the switch in the lab now before calling it a week. I'm testing backups to the SAN over the weekend so I should have some results on Monday.
Is it just XO that uses https by default when talking xapi or do pool members default to https as well when talking with each other? If it makes as much as a difference as is expected here, wouldn't http by default be the answer for xcp-ng with the option to turn on ssl if needed? Assuming xcpng hosts are connected to well protected management and SAN networks only then http shouldn't be an issue.
Maybe run it on both http and https and let the admin decide which interfaces to bind to which ports based on need during install or at least via config file changes?
If hosts are talking https by default, can they be switched to http using something similar to this? It just seems like the perf gains are pretty significant and if you're running your pool on a secured management network then this seems like a potential big win for perf.
If hosts are talking https by default, can they be switched to http using something similar to this?
This would be a huge improvement for disk migrations. I did and do many migration in the next days. This is what I found on CLI:
# ps aux | cat | grep sparse_dd root 32352 2.3 0.1 158188 28520 ? Ssl 23:07 0:59 /usr/libexec/xapi/sparse_dd -machine -src /dev/sm/backend/24236a41-7f7d-8edb-99df-6eb8ba26b715/cf04f6a0-1d79-4846-918e-97184cd68d16 -dest http://XX.XX.XX.XX/services/SM/nbd/187a0b1a-d927-f06f-0a3c-ec5e69414660/481306d1-3057-4ceb-9b7b-19b6e4f3dbe2/063a4c43-8abf-b2ee-dd78-29f46df34084?session_id=OpaqueRef%3addc8eaf8-aaaa-43a6-bff1-20c4a91ef371 -size 214748364800 -good-ciphersuites !EXPORT:RSA+AES128-SHA256 -legacy-ciphersuites RSA+AES256-SHA:RSA+AES128-SHA:RSA+RC4-SHA:RSA+DES-CBC3-SHA -ssl-legacy -prezeroed
It seems to connect using http but has
-ssl-legacyin the command, I assume is uses SSL under the hood.
Would be nice to avoid these additional layers at all.
axel last edited by
I try the new new compression with may small envirment its running. I am using for XO a HP620 Thin client. The direct export with the new compression is working. A very small VM with 30GB HDD (4GByte in use) the transferrate was between 5MByte/s to 18MByte/s. A bigger one with 300GByte (200 in use) ther was the rate mostly araound 20MByte, but the transfer was moving to a USB2 HDD.
It looks very fine next i will try a transfer to a local disk or a USB3.0 HDD
etlweather last edited by
Wow, switching to
httpmade quite a difference! By rough calculation, time to do a continuous replication is about 1/4 of what it previously was.
My XOA is connected to a 1Gbps interface and so are the various XCP servers. This is a dedicated network for VM server management / VM replication.
As comparison, a 1.76TiB VM took 11 hours 28 min to do it's initial replication when running on
https. But once
httpswas turned off, a different VM which is 4.28TiB, took 19 hours and 58 minutes. It was the first time I was able to do an initial replication on this VM as previously, it would take more than 24 hours and XCP would kill the job.
Smaller continuous replication jobs (deltas) are also faster. 40-60 minutes to do a 120GiB delta with
httptook 25 minutes.
I can probably gain more by moving the replication to a 10G network - or at least XOA will be able to deal better with concurrent replication jobs between different servers since it all funnels through XOA.
In you case,
stunnelwas probably a bottleneck, yes.
What's the CPU model on your dom0? Also if your dom0 CPU usage is high, you have less computer power for
stunnel, explaining the perf diff you have in your case (but it's not universal)
etlweather last edited by
CPU are Intel E5-2609 v4 @ 1.70GHz in this case.
Overall stats show CPU below 50% usage overall, load average between 3-4 during continue replication job.
Dom0 top show 2-3 load average.
Yes so on a low frequency CPU,
stunnelis indeed a bottleneck. It's far less the case on CPU with higher clock