AFS Server Performance Comparisons Bo Tretta Kim Kimball Jet - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

AFS Server Performance Comparisons Bo Tretta Kim Kimball Jet Propulsion Laboratory Information Services - FIL Service http://fil.jpl.nasa.gov SLAC AFS Best Practices Workshop March 24, 2004 JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 1

n Performance benchmarks of various hardware configurations n Range of ages for hardware n Different AFS versions n Most hardware is already in operation and limits the testing we can perform n Partitioned network n Testing was performed on both sides of the network firewall. n Operational Implications JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 2 2

Can we use less expensive hardware and still meet performance goals? JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 3 3

Cell Configuration n 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. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 4 4

Internet Clients Test Cell Firewall Flight Ops afs06, afs07, afs20 Firewall Database File Servers Servers File Clients Servers Clients File Database Servers Servers Database Servers JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 5 5

Benchmarking n First assessment of OpenAFS fileserver hardware using Andrew Benchmark. n Initial goal: Determine if further assessment of inexpensive fileservers is warranted – without wasting time and resources in the initial trials. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 6 6

Methodology n Compare Andrew Benchmark results from inexpensive Intel-based fileservers with results from existing Sun Solaris fileservers. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 7 7

Host O.S. AFS Hardware Memory Proc 1 Proc 1 Storage software (MB) (MHz) (MHz) 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 1.2.11 Compaq 640 P3 1.4 N/A HP Enterprise ML330 GHz Storageworks 3 Smart Array afslinux02 RH 1.2.11 Compaq 640 P3 1.4 N/A HP Enterprise ML330 GHz Storageworks 3 Smart Array afslinux03 RH 1.2.11 Aberdeen 512 P4 2.4 N/A ATA 100 Enterprise 845 PE GHz Internal 3 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 JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 8 8

Performance test from a client outside of the firewall JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 9 9

Observations n afslinux02 was not performing the same as afslinux01 which is identical hardware. n After examining afslinux02, it was found that the L2 cache module was not installed. n The subsequent tests were performed with the L2 cache module installed. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 10 10

Performance test from a client outside of the firewall with L2 cache installed JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 11 11

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. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 12 12

Conclusions n Inexpensive hardware for OpenAFS fileservers is not ruled out. n Follow on: Proceed to stress testing to determine feasible transaction rates. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 13 13

Examining a Myth n Expensive “ big iron ” is frequently purchased because “ we know it will get the job done. ” n The result can be a collection of a small number of expensive fileservers. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 14 14

But… n A larger number of inexpensive fileservers may provide equivalent performance. n 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. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 15 15

Benefits n Initial cost aside, the “ more and cheaper fileserver ” approach offers: w Inexpensive incremental increase in capacity. w Cost effective redundancy. w Better manageability. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 16 16

Cost effective redundancy n If a fileserver fails, it can be immediately replaced, with similar (or identical) hardware kept for this purpose. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 17 17

Better manageability n We theorize that it will be easier to take a machine out of service when it houses less RW data. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 18 18

Assumption n 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. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 19 19

Benefit n 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. JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 20 20

Contact Information Bo Tretta – botretta@jpl.nasa.gov Kim Kimball – Kim.Kimball@jpl.nasa.gov JPLIS-FIL Server Performance Comparisons 21 21