3 Ways to Improve Performance from a Storage Perspective
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•3,272 views
In this session, get three takeaways about Perforce performance benchmarks and their results across varying storage protocols, using NetApp storage as an example. Learn how to use Perforce benchmarks and tools to validate the performance of your Perforce deployment; understand Perforce performance across different storage protocols; and get tips and tricks for deploying Perforce on varying storage technologies.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie 3 Ways to Improve Performance from a Storage Perspective
Ähnlich wie 3 Ways to Improve Performance from a Storage Perspective (20)
Mehr von Perforce
Mehr von Perforce (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
3 Ways to Improve Performance from a Storage Perspective
- 1. # 3 Ways to Improve Performance from a Storage Perspective Vibhor Gupta - NetApp Tim Brazil - Perforce
- 2. # Vibhor Gupta Applications Eng. NetApp Inc. Tim Brazil Performance Lab Eng. Perforce Software Tim Brazil entered the software industry as a Sys Admin and soon moved into Quality Assurance roles at leading database companies. He joined Perforce in March 2007, where his focus is performance-related issues as they apply to client/server environments. Vibhor Gupta is a Technical Marketing Engineer at in Tech-Apps at NetApp. He partnered with Perforce, working on the characterization of the Perforce Application on NetApp Storage. He also is involved in the characterization of the EDA workload, where Perforce is heavily used for SCM
- 3. # Agenda • Introduction • Benchmarks • Test Results and Analysis • Key Takeaways
- 4. # Introduction • Perforce Server Deployment: Considerations − Performance − Cost − Backup and Recovery
- 5. # Performance Lab Benchmarks
- 6. # Performance Lab Benchmarks • Branchsubmit • Branchsubmit-edit • Browse • Sync • Deltas
- 7. Cold vs. Warm FilesystemCache # • Cold cache • Warm cache
- 8. Reference01 Dataset # Scenario Test Environment #1 Test Environment #2 Description Sizes reference01 total size ~35 GB p4 files //depot/... | wc -l 25200000 p4 files -a //depot/... | wc -l 72625000 revisions p4 files //depot/main/0... | wc -l 70000 files p4 files //depot/main/00/00/most/sites/have/longer/paths/jam/src/* | wc -l 70 files p4 dirs //depot/r* | wc -l 35 release directories
- 9. Branchsubmit # Compute Phase Elapsed Time Exiting Time Commit Rate integrate -v create change submit
- 10. Branchsubmit-edit # integrate edit submit Compute Phase Elapsed Time Exiting Time Commit Rate create change
- 11. Browse Benchmark # P4D Server 32 Browse Children 1024 Browses 32 Browse Children 1024 Browses 65536 Total Browses Total Completion Time
- 12. Sync Benchmark # P4D Server 32 Sync Children 32 Syncs 32 Sync Children 32 Syncs 2048 Total Syncs Total Completion Time GB Sync’ed
- 13. Deltas Benchmark # Clear Cache Start Server Run Cmd Run Cmd 7x Run Cmd Stop Server Result #1 Result #2 Completion Time Per Command
- 15. # Write Performance (Cold Cache) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Branchsubmit Files/Second Branchsubmit NFSv3 iSCSI 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Branchsubmit-Edit Files/Second Branchsubmit-Edit NFSv3 iSCSI
- 16. # Write Performance (Warm Cache) 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 branchsubmit Files/Second Branchsubmit FCP iSCSI NFS 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 NFS/iSCSI split (db only on iSCSI) 0 branchsubmit-edit Files/Second Branchsubmit-Edit FCP iSCSI NFS NFS/iSCSI split (db only on iSCSI) NFS/iSCSi split (db & journal on iSCSI)
- 17. # Read Performance 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 sync Seconds Sync FCP iSCSI NFS NFS/iSCSI split (db only on iSCSI) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 browse(1) Seconds Browse FCP iSCSI NFS NFS/iSCSI (logs only on iSCSI)
- 18. # Deltas 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Seconds Deltas NFS iSCSI FCP
- 19. # Best Practices • For best write performance, Perforce metadata and journals should be placed on faster storage like FC or iSCSI. • For NFS, recommended mount options local_lock=all and nocto • For heavy server logging, use FCP or iSCSI.
- 20. # Key Takeaways FC iSCSI iSCSI and NFS (Split Configuration) NFS Performance Excellent Excellent Good Fair Cost Fair Excellent Excellent Excellent Ease of backup and recovery Fair Fair Good Excellent Protocol Criterion
- 21. # RESOURCES Technical Report: http://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-4164.pdf Public Benchmarks: ftp://ftp.perforce.com/perforce/tools/benchmarks/
- 22. # Questions ?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This illustrates the results from the browse benchmark. As you can see, FCP, iSCSI and split configuration the results were basically the same, however, for NFS, results were poor.
- For the Deltas test, which is a read benchmark, FCP, iSCSI, and NFS are comparable in performance.
- Summary of Best Practices include: [first animation] For best write performance, Perforce metadata and journals should be placed on FC or iSCSI. [second animation] If using NFS, recommended mount options include local_lock=all and nocto. (Mention it works only with dedicated NFS server). [third animation] If the log level of Perforce application is set to a high value (3 or greater or debug) or the server activity introduces high logging, place logs on FC or iSCSI to alleviate performance issue.