Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Winter 2010 Presentations/Storage Performance

5,239 bytes added, 21:23, 21 April 2010
What results are we interested in?
<h2>=Title</h2>=
Storage Performance
By: David Chisholm (dmchisho@learn.senecac.on.ca)
<h2>Introduction<===Pictures===http:/h2>/www.paladinretrieval.net/hard%20drive.jpg
In order to have our Koji Build Farm run as efficiently as possible we needed to find out which form of data storage would be the fastest overall. The candidates were:=Introduction=
* an PATA Hard Drive connected via USB* NFS share from HongKong* iSCSI network connection In order to HongKonghave our '''Koji''' Build Farm run as efficiently as possible we needed to find out which form of data storage would be the fastest overall. The candidates were:
<h2>Approach</h2>* '''PATA:''' Hard Drive connected via USB.* '''NFS:''' Share from HongKong.* '''iSCSI:''' Network connection to HongKong.
===What was your approach to solving the problemresults are we interested in?===
<h2>Process</h2>There are 3 main results that we are interested in when rating storage performance.
What happened while you worked on *'''Read:''' The amount of data that can be read from the problem? You had multiple iterations -- what happened at each milestone? Did you go down storage medium per second.*'''Write:''' The amount of data that can be written to the wrong path storage medium per second.*'''Access:''' Time required for a computer to process data from the processor and have to start over? What barriers did you encounter?then retrieve the required data from a storage medium.
<h2>Discovery</h2>===Cost===
What did you discover Since '''NFS''' and learn during '''iSCSI''' are both network storage solutions they have no cost in themselves, but rely on network storage on a remote server. This price is simply the process -- about the technology, cost of the open source process, drives that will be installed in the community, yourself remote storage server. A USB connected PATA or SATA drive requires both a hard drive and your abilities, collaboration?a '''PATA/SATA''' to '''USB''' interface such as an external drive enclosure.
<h2>Results</h2>* '''NFS:''' Free (Uses existing storage)* '''iSCSI:''' Free (Uses existing storage)* '''USB PATA:''' ~$100 CAD
===Pictures===http://david-chisholm.no-ip.org/networkdiagram.jpg =Approach= ===How did we conduct our testing?=== *Benchmark using a linux untiliy called '''Bonnie++''' written by Russell Coker.*The Benchmark was run 3 times on each medium, the results were then averaged together.*The command used is as follows: bonnie++ -d <location> -s 2048 -u root ===Pictures===http://david-chisholm.no-ip.org/bonnie.jpg =Process= ===What was the process we used to choose our benchmarking solution?=== The goal was to find a storage solution that would result in the best build times while using the most efficient use of the storage resources available to us. The main issue encountered was finding a repeatable benchmarking solution what would give the desired results while being able to test all 3 of our storage mediums. Common Linux tools such as the '''DD''' and '''HDPARM''' commands are capable of doing disk benchmarking, but will only work for physical devices and not network networked ones, making them useless tests for our purposes. The solution was '''Bonnie++''', a Linux command line utility which gives an extensive amount amount of storage performance information while also having the ability to test all of our storage systems. ===Pictures=== http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/uploaded_images/Innovation-Process-799858.jpg =Discovery= ===What did you end up we discover during the process?=== We discovered that finding a viable benchmarking solution is harder then it sounds. Raw data will not always correspond with real results as it comes down to the application using those resources. This is evident in the mock tests using '''NFS''' vs '''USB PATA''' where '''USB PATA''' performed faster even though its benchmark results were lower using '''Bonnie++'''. ===Pictures=== http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_122/1171633495w0G6A0.jpg =Issues= ===USB PATA===*Works without issue. ===NFS===*Works, but results in longer build times than USB PATA even though it benchmarked at higher speeds. ===iSCSI===*Seems to work at first, but only to a point.*We can login to an initiator, however, under heavy load the target receives invalid opcodes, causing the connection to fail.*Experimenting with? Did you solve a alignment value of 3 did not clear the issue.*Using the problem?exact same target with a F12 x86_64 initiator is successful, issue seems to be '''ARM''' related. ===Pictures=== http://exportabel.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/train_wreck_at_montparnasse_1895.jpg =Bonnie++ Results= ==Write==<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="0"> <tr><th></th><th>Transfer Speed</th><th>Percentage Increase</th><th>CPU Usage</th></tr> <tr><td align="center">PATA</td><td align="center">28,790 KB/s</td><td align="center">0%</td><td align="center">24%</td> </tr><tr><td align="center">NFS</td><td align="center">43,363 KB/s</td><td align="center">50%</td><td align="center">16%</td></tr> <tr><td align="center">iSCSI</td><td align="center">31,503 KB/s</td><td align="center">9%</td><td align="center">30%</td></tr> </table> ==Read==<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="0%"> <tr><th></th><th>Transfer Speed</th><th>Percentage Increase</th><th>CPU Usage</th></tr> <tr><td align="center">PATA</td><td align="center">25,991 KB/s</td><td align="center">0%</td><td align="center">10%</td></tr> <tr><td align="center">NFS</td><td align="center">51,789 KB/s</td><td align="center">99%</td><td align="center">85%</td> </tr><tr><td align="center">iSCSI</td><td align="center">59,147 KB/s</td><td align="center">127%</td><td align="center">84%</td></tr> </table> ==Access==<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="0%"> <tr><th></th><th>Access (per second)</th><th>Percentage Increase</th><th>CPU Usage</th> </tr> <tr><td align="center">PATA</td><td align="center">121</td><td align="center">0%</td><td align="center">0%</td> </tr> <tr><td align="center">NFS</td><td align="center">1201</td><td align="center">1000%</td><td align="center">35%</td> </tr> <tr><td align="center">iSCSI</td><td align="center">2514</td><td align="center">2077%</td><td align="center">44%</td> </tr> </table> =Links=* Access Time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_time* cDOT iSCSI - http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/Fedora_ARM_Secondary_Architecture/iSCSI* Pictures**http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/uploaded_images/Innovation-Process-799858.jpg**http://david-chisholm.no-ip.org/networkdiagram.jpg**http://www.paladinretrieval.net/hard%20drive.jpg**http://david-chisholm.no-ip.org/bonnie.jpg**http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_122/1171633495w0G6A0.jpg**http://exportabel.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/train_wreck_at_montparnasse_1895.jpg
1
edit

Navigation menu