jplis-filserver performance comparisons1 afs server performance comparisons bo tretta kim kimball...

JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 1

AFS Server Performance Comparisons

Bo Tretta Kim Kimball

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryInformation Services - FIL Service

http://fil.jpl.nasa.gov

SLAC AFS Best Practices WorkshopMarch 24, 2004

2JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 2

Performance benchmarks of various hardware configurations

Range of ages for hardware Different AFS versions Most hardware is already in operation and

limits the testing we can perform Partitioned network Testing was performed on both sides of the

network firewall. Operational Implications

3JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 3

Can we use less expensive hardware and still meet performance goals?

4JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 4

Cell Configuration

At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, the AFS cell is configured with a firewall that splits the database servers as well as the fileservers.

5JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 5

Internet

File Servers

DatabaseServers

Firewall

Flight Ops Firewall

Clients

File Servers

DatabaseServers

Clients

Clients

DatabaseServers

File Servers

Test Cell

afs06, afs07, afs20

6JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 6

Benchmarking

First assessment of OpenAFS fileserver hardware using Andrew Benchmark.

Initial goal: Determine if further assessment of inexpensive fileservers is warranted – without wasting time and resources in the initial trials.

7JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 7

Methodology

Compare Andrew Benchmark results from inexpensive Intel-based fileservers with results from existing Sun Solaris fileservers.

8JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 8

Host O.S. AFS software

Hardware Memory (MB)

Proc 1 (MHz)

Proc 1 (MHz)

Storage Device

afs06 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 1 256 167 N/A Sparc Array afs07 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 1 256 167 N/A Sparc Array afs12 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 2 256 N/A 2 * Sparc

Array afs15 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 2 256 200 200 A 3500 afs16 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra -2 256 296 N/A 2 * A5000 afs17 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 60 256 450 450 A3500 afs18 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 60 1536 450 450 A3500 afs19 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 E 420 R 2048 450 450 A3500 afs20 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 280 R 2048 900 900 2 * T3

afslinux01 RH Enterprise

3

1.2.11 Compaq ML330

640 P3 1.4 GHz

N/A HP Storageworks Smart Array

afslinux02 RH Enterprise

3

1.2.11 Compaq ML330

640 P3 1.4 GHz

N/A HP Storageworks Smart Array

afslinux03 RH Enterprise

3

1.2.11 Aberdeen 845 PE

512 P4 2.4 GHz

N/A ATA 100 Internal

afstest03 Solaris8 3.6 2.45 Ultra - 1 256 167 N/A Sparc Array afstest05 Solaris8 3.6 2.51 Ultra - 1 256 167 N/A Sparc Array

9JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 9

Performance test from a client outside of the firewall

10JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 10

Observations

afslinux02 was not performing the same as afslinux01 which is identical hardware.

After examining afslinux02, it was found that the L2 cache module was not installed.

The subsequent tests were performed with the L2 cache module installed.

11JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 11

Performance test from a client outside of the firewall with L2 cache installed

12JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 12

Performance test from a client inside of the firewall. Did not test to the test cell systems because the production servers can not be modified.

13JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 13

Conclusions

Inexpensive hardware for OpenAFS fileservers is not ruled out.

Follow on: Proceed to stress testing to determine feasible transaction rates.

14JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 14

Examining a Myth

Expensive “big iron” is frequently purchased because “we know it will get the job done.”

The result can be a collection of a small number of expensive fileservers.

15JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 15

But…

A larger number of inexpensive fileservers may provide equivalent performance.

It may be that the initial investment in the larger number of less expensive fileservers does not significantly differ from the smaller collection of “big iron” for a given aggregate transaction load.

16JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 16

Benefits

Initial cost aside, the “more and cheaper fileserver” approach offers: Inexpensive incremental increase in capacity. Cost effective redundancy. Better manageability.

17JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 17

Cost effective redundancy

If a fileserver fails, it can be immediately replaced, with similar (or identical) hardware kept for this purpose.

18JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 18

Better manageability

We theorize that it will be easier to take a machine out of service when it houses less RW data.

19JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 19

Assumption

That the time required to move the Read/Write volumes in the OpenAFS namei implementation does not increase to a point that volume moves are truly abysmal.

20JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 20

Benefit

It will be easier to recover from unexpected hardware failure. It’s easier to justify a “spare server” at $10,000 than at $100,000.

21JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 21

Contact InformationBo Tretta – botretta@jpl.nasa.gov

Kim Kimball – Kim.Kimball@jpl.nasa.gov