[LU-9574] Large file read performance degradation from multiple OST's

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Major
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.11.0, Lustre 2.10.2
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.9.0
• Environment: RHEL 7 servers, RHEL 6 and 7 clients.

Epic/Theme

Performance

• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Jinshan Xiong (Inactive)
• Reporter: Darby Vicker

Description

We recently noticed that the large file read performance on our 2.9 LFS is dramatically worse than it used to be. The attached plot is the result of a test script that uses dd to write a large file (50GB) to disk, read that file and then copy it to a 2nd file to test write, read and read/write speeds for large files for various stripe sizes and counts. The two sets of data on this plot are on the same server and client hardware. The LFS was originally built and formatted with 2.8.0 but we eventually upgraded to 2.9.0 on the servers and clients. The behavior we are used to seeing is increasing performance as you increase the stripe count with a peak in performance around 4 or 6 OST's and a degradation after that as more OST's are used. This is what we saw under 2.8 (red lines in the plots). With 2.9 we still get very good write performance (almost line rate on our 10 GbE clients). But for reads we see extremely good performance with a single OST and significantly degraded performance for multiple OST's – black lines in the plots.  Using a git bisect to compile and test different clients, we were able to isolate it to this commit:

commit d8467ab8a2ca15fbbd5be3429c9cf9ceb0fa78b8
LU-7990 clio: revise readahead to support 16MB IO

There is slightly more info here:

http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/2017-May/014509.html

Please let me know if you need any other data or info.   

Comments

[Gerrit Updater]

John L. Hammond ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29016/
Subject: LU-9574 llite: pipeline readahead better with large I/O
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 73a7af47a01979d5dd5c7e8dcaf3f62d47f11b0b

[Peter Jones]

Landed for 2.11

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/27388/
Subject: LU-9574 llite: pipeline readahead better with large I/O
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 011742134e3152f3e389ec30c08ccfc28d7a91a7

[Gerrit Updater]

Minh Diep ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/29016
Subject: LU-9574 llite: pipeline readahead better with large I/O
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 83946d6f389a5c047cc958973c4b2cdf291a6429

[Darby Vicker]

I just applied that patch on top of 2.10.0 and tested.  Our full suite of dd tests (test_ss_sn.sh) looked good - read and writes were fast across the board.  The stock 2.10.0 client was slow for reads (as mentioned in the Aug 4 post) so I think this patch fixes our problem.  I've attached the debug log from this:

 

[root@dvicker .test]# lctl set_param debug="reada vfstrace" debug=reada vfstrace 
[root@dvicker .test]# dd if=/nobackup/.test/dvicker-1m-04nodes.keep of=/dev/null bs=25M 
2000+0 records in 
2000+0 records out 52428800000 bytes (52 GB) copied, 54.5779 s, 961 MB/s 
[root@dvicker .test]# lctl dk > debug.4node.2.10.0_patch27388_set2.log

[Jinshan Xiong (Inactive)]

I saw some weird thing in the log message:

00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.619586:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:448:lov_io_rw_iter_init()) stripe: 1908 chunk: [2000683008, 2001731584) 2018508800
00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.619592:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:413:lov_io_iter_init()) shrink: 0 [500170752, 501219328)
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.619595:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:230:vvp_io_one_lock_index()) lock: 0 [488448, 488703]
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.619610:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:725:vvp_io_read_start()) read: -> [2000683008, 2001731584)
00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620038:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:448:lov_io_rw_iter_init()) stripe: 1909 chunk: [2001731584, 2002780160) 2018508800
00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620042:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:413:lov_io_iter_init()) shrink: 1 [500170752, 501219328)
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620044:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:230:vvp_io_one_lock_index()) lock: 0 [488704, 488959]
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620052:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:725:vvp_io_read_start()) read: -> [2001731584, 2002780160)
00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620456:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:448:lov_io_rw_iter_init()) stripe: 1910 chunk: [2002780160, 2003828736) 2018508800
00020000:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620459:0:3314:0:(lov_io.c:413:lov_io_iter_init()) shrink: 2 [500170752, 501219328)
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620461:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:230:vvp_io_one_lock_index()) lock: 0 [488960, 489215]
00000080:00200000:43.0:1496701931.620470:0:3314:0:(vvp_io.c:725:vvp_io_read_start()) read: -> [2002780160, 2003828736)
00000080:00400000:43.0:1496701931.620478:0:3314:0:(rw.c:733:ras_update()) [0x2000120e5:0x44:0x0] pages at 488960 miss.
00000080:00400000:43.0:1496701931.620480:0:3314:0:(rw.c:794:ras_update()) lrp 488447 cr 0 cp 0 ws 488192 wl 7424 nra 488447 rpc 256 r 22 ri 1024 csr 128 sf 359936 sp 512 sl 1024

When the page 488960 was being read, the previous read requests to [488704, 488959] and [488704, 488959] were skipped, probably because it has found cached pages in memory, which confused readahead algorithm and detected it as stride read.

This pattern actually occurred all the time, and I think the skipped reading extents always belong to stripe 0 & 1. Was the application doing reread and somehow the cached pages for stripe 2 & 3 were cleaned up?

Anyway, I still found a problem in stride read so please try the patch set 2 of https://review.whamcloud.com/27388 with debug level setting to "vfstrace reada", and please post the debug log here.

[Gerrit Updater]

.

[Jinshan Xiong (Inactive)]

I'm looking at the debug - sorry for delay response.

[Darby Vicker]

Just checking in on this.  We've upgraded to 2.10 and we still had to revert d8467ab to keep from running into this issue.  

[Darby Vicker]

I see a new patch was uploaded to LU-9214.  Based on the debug logs you've seen, do you think this still might be related?  I can give the new patch a try if you think it might help.