Using rwmixread and rate_iops in fio

Creating a mixed read/write workload with fio can be a bit confusing. Assume we want to create a fixed rate workload of 100 IOPS split 70:30 between reads and writes.

Don’t mix rwmixread and rate_iops
TL;DR

Specify the rate directly with rate_iops=<read-rate>,<write-rate> do not try to use rwmixread with rate_iops. For the example above use.

rate_iops=70,30 

Additionally older versions of fio exhibit problems when using rate_poisson with rate_iops . fio version 3.7 that I was using did not exhibit the problem.

Continue reading

Why does my SSD not issue 1MB IO’s?

First things First

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CDC9762-smd-drive.jpg
CDC 9762 SMD disk drive from 1974

Why do we tend to use 1MB IO sizes for throughput benchmarking?

To achieve the maximum throughput on a storage device, we will usually use a large IO size to maximize the amount of data is transferred per IO request. The idea is to make the ratio of data-transfers to IO requests as large as possible to reduce the CPU overhead of the actual IO request so we can get as close to the device bandwidth as possible. To take advantage of and pre-fetching, and to reduce the need for head movement in rotational devices, a sequential pattern is used.

For historical reasons, many storage testers will use a 1MB IO size for sequential testing. A typical fio command line might look like something this.

fio --name=read --bs=1m --direct=1 --filename=/dev/sda
Continue reading

How to identify SSD types and measure performance.

Thomas Springer / CC0
Generic SSD Internal Layout

The real-world achievable SSD performance will vary depending on factors like IO size, queue depth and even CPU clock speed. It’s useful to know what the SSD is capable of delivering in the actual environment in which it’s used. I always start by looking at the performance claimed by the manufacturer. I use these figures to bound what is achievable. In other words, treat the manufacturer specs as “this device will go no faster than…”.


Identify SSD

Start by identifying the exact SSD type by using lsscsi. Note that the disks we are going to test are connected by ATA transport type, therefore the maximum queue depth that each device will support is 32.

# lsscsi 
[1:0:0:0] cd/dvd QEMU QEMU DVD-ROM 2.5+ /dev/sr0
[2:0:0:0] disk ATA SAMSUNG MZ7LM1T9 404Q /dev/sda
[2:0:1:0] disk ATA SAMSUNG MZ7LM1T9 404Q /dev/sdb
[2:0:2:0] disk ATA SAMSUNG MZ7LM1T9 404Q /dev/sdc
[2:0:3:0] disk ATA SAMSUNG MZ7LM1T9 404Q /dev/

The marketing name for these Samsung SSD’s is “SSD 850 EVO 2.5″ SATA III 1TB

Identify device specs

The spec sheet for this ssd claims the following performance characteristics.

Workload (Max)SpecMeasured
Sequential Read (QD=8)540 MB/s534
Sequential Write (QD=8)520 MB/s515
Read IOPS 4KB (QD=32)98,00080,00
Write IOPS 4KB (QD=32)90,00067,000
Continue reading

Creating compressible data with fio.

binary-code-507785_1280

Today I used fio to create some compressible data to test on my Nutanix nodes.  I ended up using the following fio params to get what I wanted.

 

buffer_compress_percentage=50
refill_buffers
buffer_pattern=0xdeadbeef
  • buffer_compress_percentage does what you’d expect and specifies how compressible the data is
  • refill_buffers Is required to make the above compress percentage do what you’d expect in the large.  IOW, I want the entire file to be compressible by the buffer_compress_percentage amount
  • buffer_pattern  This is a big one.  Without setting this pattern, fio will use Null bytes to achieve compressibility, and Nutanix like many other storage vendors will suppress runs of Zero’s and so the data reduction will mostly be from zero suppression rather than from compression.

Much of this is well explained in the README for latest version of fio.

Also NOTE  Older versions of fio do not support many of the fancy data creation flags, but will not alert you to the fact that fio is ignoring them. I spent quite a bit of time wondering why my data was not compressed, until I downloaded and compiled the latest fio.

 

Specifying Drive letters with fio for Windows.

windows_logo_-_2012_derivative

Simple fio file for using Drive letters on Windows.

This will create a file called “fiofile” on the F:\ Drive in Windows.  Notice that the specification is “Driveletter” “Backslash” “Colon” “Filename”

In fio terms we are “escaping” the “:” which fio traditionally uses as a file separator.

[global]
bs=1024k
size=1G
time_based
runtime=30
rw=read
direct=1
iodepth=8

[job1]
filename=F\:fiofile

To run IO to multiple drives (Add the group_reporting) flag to make the output more sane.

[global]
bs=1024k
size=1G
time_based
runtime=30
rw=read
direct=1
iodepth=8
group_reporting

[job1]
filename=F\:fiofile

[job2]
filename=G\:fiofile

Download fio for windows here

 

Things to know when using vdbench.

Recently I found that vdbench was not giving me the amount of outstanding IO that I had intended to configure by using the “threads=N” parameter. It turned out that with Linux, most of the filesystems (ext2, ext3 and ext4) do not support concurrent directIO, although they do support directIO. This was a bit of a shock coming from Solaris which had concurrent directIO since 2001.

All the Linux filesystems I tested allow multiple outstanding IO’s if the IO is submitted using asynchronous IO (AKA asyncIO or AIO) but not when using multiple writer threads (except XFS). Unfortunately vdbench does not allow AIO since it tries to be platform agnostic.

fio however does allow either threads or AIO to be used and so that’s what I used in the experiments below.

The column fio QD is the amount of outstanding IO, or Queue Depth that is intended to be passed to the storage device. The column iostat QD is the actual Queue Depth seen by the device. The iostat QD is not “8” because the response time is so low that fio cannot issue the IO’s quickly enough to maintain the intended queue depth.

Device
fio QD
fio QD Type
direct
iostat QD
 ps -efT | grep fio | wc -l
/dev/sd
8
libaio
Yes
7
5
/dev/sd
8
Threads
Yes
7
12
ext2 fs (mke2fs)
8
Threads
Yes
1
12
ext2 fs (mke2fs)
8
libaio
Yes
7
5
ext3 (mkfs -t ext3)
8
Threads
Yes
1
12
ext3 (mkfs -t ext3)
8
libaio
Yes
7
5
ext4 (mkfs -t ext4)
8
Threads
Yes
1
12
ext4 (mkfs -t ext4)
8
libaio
Yes
7
5
xfs (mkfs -t xfs)
8
Threads
Yes
7
12
xfs (mkfs -t xfs)
8
libaio
Yes
7
5

At any rate, all is not lost – using raw devices (/dev/sdX) will give concurrent directIO, as will XFS. These issues are well known by Linux DB guys, and I found interesting articles from Percona and Kevin Closson after I finally figured out what was going on with vdbench.

fio “scripts”

For the “threads” case.

[global]
bs=8k
ioengine=sync
iodepth=8
direct=1
time_based
runtime=60
numjobs=8
size=1800m

[randwrite-threads]
rw=randwrite
filename=/a/file1

For the “aio” case

[global]
bs=8k
ioengine=libaio
iodepth=8
direct=1
time_based
runtime=60
size=1800m


[randwrite-aio]
rw=randwrite
filename=/a/file1

SATA on Nutanix. Some experimental data.

The question of  why  Nutanix uses SATA drive comes up sometimes, especially from customers who have experienced very poor performance using SATA on traditional arrays.

I can understand this anxiety.  In my time at NetApp we exclusively used SAS or FC-AL drives in performance test work.  At the time there was a huge difference in performance between SCSI and SATA.  Even a few short years ago, FC typically spun at 15K RPM whereas SATA was stuck at about a 5K RPM, so experiencing 3X the rotational delay.

These days SAS and SATA are both available in 7200 RPM configurations, and these are the type we use in standard Nutanix nodes.  In fact the SATA drives that we use are marketed by Seagate as “Nearline SAS”  or NL-SAS.   Mainly to differentiate them from the consumer grade SATA drives that are found in cheap laptops.  There are hundreds of SAS Vs SATA articles on the web, so I won’t go over the theoretical/historical arguments.

SATA in Hybrid/Tiered Storage

In a Nutanix cluster the “heavy lifting” of IO is mainly done by the SSD’s – leaving the SATA drives to service the few remaining IO’s that miss the SSD tier.  Under moderate load, the SATA spindles do pretty well, and since the SATA  $/GB is only 60% of SAS.  SATA seems like a good choice for mostly-cold data.

Let’s Experiment.

From a performance perspective,  I decided to run a few experiments to see just how well SATA performs.  In the test, the  SATA drives are Nutanix standard drives “ST91000640NS” (Seagate, priced around $150).  The comparable SAS drives are the same form-factor (2.5 Inch)  “AL13SEB900” (Toshiba, priced at about $250 USD).  These drives spin at 10K RPM.  Both drives hold around 1TB.

There are three experiments per drive type to reveal the impact of seek-times.  This is achieved using the “filesize” parameter of fio – which determines the LBA range to read.  One thing to note, is that I use a queue-depth of one.  Therefore IOPs can be calculated as simply 1/Response-Time (converted to seconds).

[global]
bs=8k
rw=randread 
iodepth=1 
ioengine=libaio 
time_based 
runtime=10 
direct=1 
filesize=1g 

[randread]
filename=/dev/sdf1 

Random Distribution. SATA Vs SAS

Working Set Size7.2K RPM SATA Response Time (ms)10K RPM SAS Response Time (ms)
1 GB5.54
100 GB7.54.5
1000 GB12.57

Zipf Distribution. SATA Only.

Working Set SizeResponse Time (ms)
1000G8.5

Somewhat intuitively as the working-set (seek) gets larger, the difference between “Real SAS” and “NL-SAS/SATA” gets wider.  This is intuitive because with a 1GB working-set,  the seek-time is close to zero, and so only the rotational delay (based on RPM) is a factor.  In fact the difference in response time is the same as the difference in rotational speed (1:1.3).

Also  (just for fun) I used the “random_distribution=zipf” function in fio to test the response time when reading across the entire range of the disk – but with a “hotspot” (zipf) rather than a uniform random read – which is pretty unrealistic.

In the “realistic” case – reading across the entire disk on the SATA drives shipped with Nutanix nodes is capable of 8.5 ms response time at 125 IOPS per spindle.

 Conclusion

The performance difference between SAS and SATA is often over-stated.  At moderate loads SATA performs well enough for most use-cases.  Even when delivering fully random IO over the entirety of the disk – SATA can deliver 8K in less than 15ms.  Using a more realistic (not 100% random) access pattern the response time is  < 10ms.

For a properly sized Nutanix implementation, the intent is to service most IO from Flash. It’s OK to generate some work on HDD from time-to-time even on SATA.

Multiple devices/jobs in fio

If your underlying filesystem/devices have different response times (e.g. some devices are cached – or are on SSD) and others are on spinning disk, then the behavior of fio can be quite different depending on how the fio config file is specified.  Typically there are two approaches

1) Have a single “job” that has multiple devices

2) Make each device a “job”

With a single job, the iodepth parameter will be the total iodepth for the job (not per device) .  If multiple jobs are used (with one device per job) then the iodepth value is per device.

Option 1 (a single job) results in [roughly] equal IO across disks regardless of response time.  This is like  having a volume manager or RAID device, in that the overall oprate is limited by the slowest device.

For example, notice that even though the wait/response times are quite uneven (ranging from 0.8 ms to 1.5ms) the r/s rate is quite even.  You will notice though the that queue size is very variable so as to achieve similar throughput in the face of uneven response times.

Screen Shot 2014-06-17 at 5.34.55 PM

To get this sort of behavior use the following fio syntax. We allow fio to use up to 128 outstanding IO’s to distribute amongst the 8 “files” or in this case “devices”. In order to maintain the maximum throughput for the overall job, the devices with slower response times have more outstanding IO’s than the devices with faster response times.

[global]
bs=8k
iodepth=128
direct=1
ioengine=libaio
randrepeat=0
group_reporting
time_based
runtime=60
filesize=6G

[job1]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdb:/dev/sda:/dev/sdd:/dev/sde:/dev/sdf:/dev/sdg:/dev/sdh:/dev/sdi
name=random-read

The second option, give an uneven throughput because each device is linked to a separate job, and so is completely independent.  The  iodepth parameter is specific to each device, so every device has 16 outstanding IO’s.  The throughput (r/s) is directly tied to the response time of the specific device that it is working on.  So response times that are 10x faster generate throughput that is 10x faster.  For simulating real workloads this is probably not what you want.

For instance when sizing workingset and cache, the disks that have better throughput may dominate the cache.

Screen Shot 2014-06-17 at 5.32.52 PM

[global]
bs=8k
iodepth=16
direct=1
ioengine=libaio
randrepeat=0
group_reporting
time_based
runtime=60
filesize=2G

[job1]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdb
name=raw=random-read
[job2]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sda
name=raw=random-read
[job3]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdd
name=raw=random-read
[job4]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sde
name=raw=random-read
[job5]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdf
name=raw=random-read
[job6]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdg
name=raw=random-read
[job7]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdh
name=raw=random-read
[job8]
rw=randread
filename=/dev/sdi
name=raw=random-read