Difference between revisions of "Winter 2010 Presentations/Storage Performance"
(→What results are we interested in?) |
|||
| (75 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | =Title= | ||
| − | + | Storage Performance | |
| + | By: David Chisholm (dmchisho@learn.senecac.on.ca) | ||
| − | == | + | ===Pictures=== |
| + | http://www.paladinretrieval.net/hard%20drive.jpg | ||
| − | = | + | =Introduction= |
| − | + | 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: | |
| − | + | * '''PATA:''' Hard Drive connected via USB. | |
| − | + | * '''NFS:''' Share from HongKong. | |
| + | * '''iSCSI:''' Network connection to HongKong. | ||
| − | + | ===What results are we interested in?=== | |
| − | + | There are 3 main results that we are interested in when rating storage performance. | |
| − | * | + | *'''Read:''' The amount of data that can be read from the storage medium per second. |
| − | * | + | *'''Write:''' The amount of data that can be written to the storage medium per second. |
| − | * | + | *'''Access:''' Time required for a computer to process data from the processor and then retrieve the required data from a storage medium. |
| − | + | ===Cost=== | |
| − | + | Since '''NFS''' and '''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 cost of the drives that will be installed in the remote storage server. A USB connected PATA or SATA drive requires both a hard drive and a '''PATA/SATA''' to '''USB''' interface such as an external drive enclosure. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | * '''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?=== | |
| − | The command used is as follows: | + | *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 | 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 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=== | |
| − | <table border="1" cellspacing=" | + | *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 a alignment value of 3 did not clear the issue. | ||
| + | *Using the 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> | <tr> | ||
| Line 57: | Line 101: | ||
<th>Percentage Increase</th> | <th>Percentage Increase</th> | ||
<th>CPU Usage</th> | <th>CPU Usage</th> | ||
| − | |||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
| Line 65: | Line 108: | ||
<td align="center">0%</td> | <td align="center">0%</td> | ||
<td align="center">24%</td> | <td align="center">24%</td> | ||
| − | + | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td align="center">NFS</td> | <td align="center">NFS</td> | ||
<td align="center">43,363 KB/s</td> | <td align="center">43,363 KB/s</td> | ||
| − | |||
<td align="center">50%</td> | <td align="center">50%</td> | ||
<td align="center">16%</td> | <td align="center">16%</td> | ||
| − | |||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
| + | |||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td align="center">iSCSI</td> | <td align="center">iSCSI</td> | ||
| Line 80: | Line 122: | ||
<td align="center">9%</td> | <td align="center">9%</td> | ||
<td align="center">30%</td> | <td align="center">30%</td> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | <table border="1" cellspacing=" | + | ==Read== |
| + | <table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="0%"> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
| Line 93: | Line 134: | ||
<th>Percentage Increase</th> | <th>Percentage Increase</th> | ||
<th>CPU Usage</th> | <th>CPU Usage</th> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td align="center">PATA</td> | <td align="center">PATA</td> | ||
| Line 101: | Line 141: | ||
<td align="center">0%</td> | <td align="center">0%</td> | ||
<td align="center">10%</td> | <td align="center">10%</td> | ||
| − | |||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
| + | |||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td align="center">NFS</td> | <td align="center">NFS</td> | ||
| − | |||
<td align="center">51,789 KB/s</td> | <td align="center">51,789 KB/s</td> | ||
<td align="center">99%</td> | <td align="center">99%</td> | ||
<td align="center">85%</td> | <td align="center">85%</td> | ||
| − | + | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
| Line 116: | Line 155: | ||
<td align="center">127%</td> | <td align="center">127%</td> | ||
<td align="center">84%</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> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <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> | </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 | ||
Latest revision as of 20:23, 21 April 2010
Contents
Title
Storage Performance By: David Chisholm (dmchisho@learn.senecac.on.ca)
Pictures
http://www.paladinretrieval.net/hard%20drive.jpg
Introduction
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:
- PATA: Hard Drive connected via USB.
- NFS: Share from HongKong.
- iSCSI: Network connection to HongKong.
What results are we interested in?
There are 3 main results that we are interested in when rating storage performance.
- Read: The amount of data that can be read from the storage medium per second.
- Write: The amount of data that can be written to the storage medium per second.
- Access: Time required for a computer to process data from the processor and then retrieve the required data from a storage medium.
Cost
Since NFS and 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 cost of the drives that will be installed in the remote storage server. A USB connected PATA or SATA drive requires both a hard drive and a PATA/SATA to USB interface such as an external drive enclosure.
- 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 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 a alignment value of 3 did not clear the issue.
- Using the 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
| Transfer Speed | Percentage Increase | CPU Usage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PATA | 28,790 KB/s | 0% | 24% |
| NFS | 43,363 KB/s | 50% | 16% |
| iSCSI | 31,503 KB/s | 9% | 30% |
Read
| Transfer Speed | Percentage Increase | CPU Usage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PATA | 25,991 KB/s | 0% | 10% |
| NFS | 51,789 KB/s | 99% | 85% |
| iSCSI | 59,147 KB/s | 127% | 84% |
Access
| Access (per second) | Percentage Increase | CPU Usage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PATA | 121 | 0% | 0% |
| NFS | 1201 | 1000% | 35% |
| iSCSI | 2514 | 2077% | 44% |
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
