Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FIO just slow #1851

Open
kookin opened this issue Jan 3, 2025 · 6 comments
Open

FIO just slow #1851

kookin opened this issue Jan 3, 2025 · 6 comments
Labels
needreporterinfo Waiting on information from the issue reporter

Comments

@kookin
Copy link

kookin commented Jan 3, 2025

Please acknowledge the following before creating a ticket

yes, although these was a previous issue like this but unresolved and closed

Description of the bug:

FIO very slow on enterprise hardware. Very slow on the initial layout and the subsequent performance results are radically different from an FIO installation on the exact same hardware of a previous installation.

The FIO params are: fio --name=blockchain_test --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --bs=8k --direct=1 --size=5G --numjobs=8 --runtime=600 --group_reporting

We previously ran the exact same FIO parameters on the exact same hardware with a different installation of Proxmox/Ceph (with even less disks actually) and FIO was much faster in the layout and the overall storage performance was about 3 times better. How is this possible. Ceph itself is showing 100% healthy.

Environment: The environment is a 3 node Proxmox Ceph PoC with a RDB pool backed by 10x 3TB NVMe's. Test VM is running Ubuntu 22.04.

fio version: fio-3.28

Reproduction steps
Replicated env above.

@kookin
Copy link
Author

kookin commented Jan 3, 2025

Upgraded to fio-3.38-19-gd1ebb and still the same issue

@sitsofe
Copy link
Collaborator

sitsofe commented Jan 3, 2025

@kookin can you simplify your job further by removing as much of it as possible. For example do you still see the problem with --rw=write? Can you remove --numjobs=8 and up the iodepth and still see the problem etc?

@sitsofe
Copy link
Collaborator

sitsofe commented Jan 3, 2025

@kookin In the other ticket you mention that layout is slow... Is your same job slow when you use --fallocate=none?

@sitsofe sitsofe added the needreporterinfo Waiting on information from the issue reporter label Jan 3, 2025
@kookin
Copy link
Author

kookin commented Jan 6, 2025

@sitsofe - with allocate=none

I timed it and it took 6m51s for the 8 files to be created ->

fio --name=blockchain_test --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --bs=8k --direct=1 --size=5G --numjobs=8 --runtime=600 --group_reporting --fallocate=none
blockchain_test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 8192B-8192B, (W) 8192B-8192B, (T) 8192B-8192B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
...
fio-3.38-19-gd1ebb
Starting 8 processes
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)
blockchain_test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 5120MiB)

@sitsofe
Copy link
Collaborator

sitsofe commented Jan 6, 2025

@kookin:

I timed it and it took 6m51s for the 8 files to be created ->

We will also need to know how long it is supposed to take to know how much worse it is.

Also did you see this request in a prior comment?

@kookin can you simplify your job further by removing as much of it as possible. For example do you still see the problem with --rw=write? Can you remove --numjobs=8 and up the iodepth and still see the problem etc?

Please try and remove/reduce as many individual pieces as possible to help narrow down where the problem lies.

@kookin
Copy link
Author

kookin commented Jan 7, 2025

@sitsofe - i am suspecting it is my ceph configuration as I've tested it on VMware and it acts normally. I'll keep you informed if anything changes. Thanks for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needreporterinfo Waiting on information from the issue reporter
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants