jplis-filserver performance comparisons1 afs server performance comparisons bo tretta kim kimball...
TRANSCRIPT
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 – [email protected]
Kim Kimball – [email protected]