| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:51:05 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@...sung.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] writeback: add dirty_background_centisecs per bdi variable
Hi Dave.
Test Procedure:
1) Local USB disk WRITE speed on NFS server is ~25 MB/s
2) Run WRITE test(create 1 GB file) on NFS Client with default
writeback settings on NFS Server. By default
bdi->dirty_background_bytes = 0, that means no change in default
writeback behaviour
3) Next we change bdi->dirty_background_bytes = 25 MB (almost equal to
local USB disk write speed on NFS Server)
*** only on NFS Server - not on NFS Client ***
[NFS Server]
# echo $((25*1024*1024)) > /sys/block/sdb/bdi/dirty_background_bytes
# cat /sys/block/sdb/bdi/dirty_background_bytes
26214400
4) Run WRITE test again on NFS client to see change in WRITE speed at NFS client
Test setup details:
Test result on PC - FC16 - RAM 3 GB - ethernet - 1000 Mbits/s,
Create 1 GB File
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: XFS over NFS - WRITE SPEED on NFS Client
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
default writeback bdi->dirty_background_bytes
setting = 25 MB
RecSize write speed(MB/s) write speed(MB/s) % Change
10485760 27.39 28.53 4%
1048576 27.9 28.59 2%
524288 27.55 28.94 5%
262144 25.4 28.58 13%
131072 25.73 27.55 7%
65536 25.85 28.45 10%
32768 26.13 28.64 10%
16384 26.17 27.93 7%
8192 25.64 28.07 9%
4096 26.28 28.19 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2: EXT4 over NFS - WRITE SPEED on NFS Client
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
default writeback bdi->dirty_background_bytes
setting = 25 MB
RecSize write speed(MB/s) write speed(MB/s) % Change
10485760 23.87 28.3 19%
1048576 24.81 27.79 12%
524288 24.53 28.14 15%
262144 24.21 27.99 16%
131072 24.11 28.33 18%
65536 23.73 28.21 19%
32768 25.66 27.52 7%
16384 24.3 27.67 14%
8192 23.6 27.08 15%
4096 23.35 27.24 17%
As mentioned in the above Table 1 & 2, there is performance
improvement on NFS client on gigabit Ethernet on both EXT4/XFS over
NFS. We did not observe any degradation in write speed.
However, performance gain varies on different file systems i.e.
different on XFS & EXT4 over NFS.
We also tried this change on BTRFS over NFS, but we did not see any
significant change in WRITE speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple NFS Client test:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry - We could not arrange multiple PCs to verify this.
So, we tried 1 NFS Server + 2 NFS Clients using 3 target boards:
ARM Target + 512 MB RAM + ethernet - 100 Mbits/s, create 1 GB File
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3: bdi->dirty_background_bytes = 0 MB
- default writeback behaviour
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RecSize Write Speed Write Speed Combined
on Client 1 on client 2 write speed
(MB/s) (MB/s) (MB/s)
10485760 5.45 5.36 10.81
1048576 5.44 5.34 10.78
524288 5.48 5.51 10.99
262144 6.24 4.83 11.07
131072 5.58 5.53 11.11
65536 5.51 5.48 10.99
32768 5.42 5.46 10.88
16384 5.62 5.58 11.2
8192 5.59 5.49 11.08
4096 5.57 6.38 11.95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4: bdi->dirty_background_bytes = 25 MB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RecSize Write Speed Write Speed Combined
on Client 1 on client 2 write speed
(MB/s) (MB/s) (MB/s)
10485760 5.43 5.76 11.19
1048576 5.51 5.72 11.23
524288 5.37 5.69 11.06
262144 5.46 5.51 10.97
131072 5.64 5.6 11.24
65536 5.53 5.64 11.17
32768 5.51 5.53 11.04
16384 5.51 5.51 11.02
8192 5.61 5.59 11.2
4096 6.11 5.65 11.76
As mentioned in the above table 3 & 4, there is no significant drop in
WRITE speed of individual NFS Clients.
There is minor improvement on combined write speed of NFS client 1 & 2.
> 1. what's the comparison in performance to typical NFS
> server writeback parameter tuning? i.e. dirty_background_ratio=5,
> dirty_ratio=10, dirty_expire_centiseconds=1000,
> dirty_writeback_centisecs=1? i.e. does this give change give any
> benefit over the current common practice for configuring NFS
> servers?
Agreed, that above improvement in write speed can be achieved by
tuning above write-back parameters.
But if we change these settings, it will change write-back behavior
system wide.
On the other hand, if we change proposed per bdi setting,
bdi->dirty_background_bytes it will change write-back behavior for the
block device exported on NFS server.
> 2. what happens when you have 10 clients all writing to the server
> at once? Or a 100? NFS servers rarely have a single writer to a
> single file at a time, so what impact does this change have on
> multiple concurrent file write performance from multiple clients
Sorry, we could not arrange more than 2 PCs for verifying this.
So, We tried this on 3 ARM target boards - 1 ARM board as NFS server &
2 ARM targets as NFS clients connected with HUB on 100 Mbits/s
ethernet link speed.
Please refer above Table 3 & 4 results for this.
> 3. Following on from the multiple client test, what difference does it
> make to file fragmentation rates? Writing more frequently means
> smaller allocations and writes, and that tends to lead to higher
> fragmentation rates, especially when multiple files are being
> written concurrently. Higher fragmentation also means lower
> performance over time as fragmentation accelerates filesystem aging
> effects on performance. IOWs, it may be faster when new, but it
> will be slower 3 months down the track and that's a bad tradeoff to
> make.
We agree that there could be bit more framentation. But as you know,
we are not changing writeback settings at NFS clients.
So, write-back behavior on NFS client will not change - IO requests
will be buffered at NFS client as per existing write-back behavior.
Also, by default we set bdi->dirty_background_bytes = 0, so, it does
not change default writeback setting unless user wants to tune it as
per the environment.
> 4. What happens for higher bandwidth network links? e.g. gigE or
> 10gigE? Are the improvements still there? Or does it cause
> regressions at higher speeds? I'm especially interested in what
> happens to multiple writers at higher network speeds, because that's
> a key performance metric used to measure enterprise level NFS
> servers.
As mentioned in the above table 1 & 2, on GIGABIT Ethernet interface
also it provides performance improvement in WRITE speed. It is not
degrading write speed.
We could not arrange 10gigE, so we could verify this patch only on
100Mbits/s and 1000Mbits/s Ethernet link.
> 5. Are the improvements consistent across different filesystem
> types? We've had writeback changes in the past cause improvements
> on one filesystem but significant regressions on others. I'd
> suggest that you need to present results for ext4, XFS and btrfs so
> that we have a decent idea of what we can expect from the change to
> the generic code.
As mentioned in the above Table 1 & 2, performance gain in WRITE speed
is different on different file systems i.e. different on NFS client
over XFS & EXT4.
We also tried BTRFS over NFS, but we could not see any WRITE speed
performance gain/degrade on BTRFS over NFS, so we are not posting
BTRFS results here.
Please let us know your opinion.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists