Joemon M Jose (with Ioannis Arapakis & Ioannis Konstas) Department of Computing Science.
Measuring PROOF Lite performance in (non)virtualized environment Ioannis Charalampidis, Aristotle...
-
Upload
annabelle-tate -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Measuring PROOF Lite performance in (non)virtualized environment Ioannis Charalampidis, Aristotle...
Measuring PROOF Lite performance in (non)virtualized environment
Ioannis Charalampidis, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiSummer Student 2010
Overview
• Introduction•Benchmarks: Overall execution time•Benchmarks: In-depth analysis•Conclusion
What am I looking for?
•There is a known overhead caused by the virtualization process▫How big is it?▫Where is located?▫How can we minimize it?▫Which hypervisor has the best
performance?• I am using CernVM as guest
What is CernVM?
• It’s a baseline Virtual Software Appliance for use by LHC experiments
• It’s available for many hypervisors
How am I going to find the answers?•Using as benchmark a standard data
analysis application (ROOT + PROOF Lite)
•Test it on different hypervisors •And on varying number of workers/CPUs
•Compare the performance (Physical vs. Virtualized)
Problem• The benchmark application requires too
much time to complete ( 2 min ~ 15 min )▫At least 3 runs are required for reliable results▫The in-depth analysis overhead is about 40%▫It is not efficient to perform detailed analysis for
every CPU / Hypervisor configuration
Create the overall execution time benchmarks
Find the best configuration to run the traces on
Benchmarks performed• Overall time▫Using time utility and automated batch scripts
• In-depth analysis▫Tracing system calls using
Strace KernelTAP
▫Analyzing the trace files using applications I wrote BASST (Batch analyzer based on STrace) KARBON (General purpose application profiler
based on trace files)
Process description and results
Benchmark Configuration• Base machine
▫ Scientific Linux CERN 5• Guests
▫ CernVM 2.1• Software packages from SLC repositories
▫ Linux Kernel 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5▫ XEN 3.1.2 + 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5▫ KVM 83-194.8.1.el5▫ Python 2.5.4p2 (from AFS)▫ ROOT 5.26.00b (from AFS)
• Base machine hardware▫ 24 x Intel Xeon X7460 2.66GHz with VT-x Support (64 bit)▫ No VT-d nor Extended Page Tables (EPT) hardware support▫ 32G RAM
Benchmark Configuration• Virtual machine configuration▫ 1, 2 to 16 CPUs with 2 CPU step▫ <CPU#> + 1Gb RAM for Physical disk and Network tests▫ <CPU#> + 17Gb RAM for RAM Disk tests▫ Disk image for the OS▫ Physical disk for the Data + Software
• Important background services running▫ NSCD (Caching daemon)
Benchmark Configuration
•Caches were cleared before every test▫Page cache, dentries and inodes▫Using the /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches flag
•No swap memory was used▫By periodically monitoring the free memory
Automated batch scripts• The VM batch script runs on
the host machine• It repeats the following
procedure:▫Crate a new Virtual Machine▫Wait for the machine to finish
booting▫Connect to the controlling
script inside the VM▫Drop caches both on the host
and the guest▫Start the job▫Receive and archive the results
Client
Server
Hypervisor
Benchmark
Benchmark
Benchmark
Problem• There was a bug on PROOF Lite that was
looking up a non-existing hostname during the startup of each worker Example : 0.2-plitehp24.cern.ch-
1281241251-1271• Discovered by detailed system call tracing
The hostname couldn’t be cached The application had to wait for the timeout The startup time was delayed randomly Call tracing applications made this delay even
bigger virtually hanging the application
Problem
•The problem was resolved with:▫ A minimal DNS proxy was developed that fakes the
existence of the buggy hostname▫ It was later fixed in PROOF source
Application DNS ServerFake DNS
Proxy
cernvm.cern.ch?137.138.234.20
x.x-xxxxxx-xxx-xxx?
127.0.0.1
ProblemExample: Events / sec for different CPU settings, as reported by the buggy benchmark
Before After
Results – Physical Disk
Results – Network (XROOTD)
Results – RAM Disk
Results – Relative valuesRAM Disk Network
(XROOTD)Physical Disk
Bare metal
KVM
XEN
Results – Absolute valuesRAM Disk Network
(XROOTD)Physical Disk
Bare metal
KVM
XEN
Results – Comparison chart
Procedure, problems and results
In depth analysis• In order to get more details the program
execution was monitored and all the system calls were traced and logged
•Afterwards, the analyzer extracted useful information from the trace files such as▫Detecting the time spent on each system
call▫Detecting the filesystem / network activity
•The process of tracing adds some overhead but it is cancelled out from the overall performance measurement
System call tracing utilities• STrace
▫ Traces application-wide system calls from user space
▫ Connects to the tracing process using the ptrace() system call and monitors it’s activity
• Advantages▫ Traces the application’s
system calls in real time▫ Has very verbose output
• Disadvantages▫ Creates big overhead
Process
Kernel
STrace
System call tracing utilities• SystemTAP
▫ Traces system-wide kernel activity, asynchronously
▫ Runs as a kernel module• Advantages
▫ Can trace virtually everything on a running kernel
▫ Supports scriptable kernel probes
• Disadvantages▫ It is not simple to extract
detailed information▫ System calls can be lost on
high CPU activity
Process
Kernel
System TAP
System call tracing utilities
•Sample STrace output:5266 1282662179.860933 arch_prctl(ARCH_SET_FS, 0x2b5f2bcc27d0) = 0 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.860960 mprotect(0x34ca54d000, 16384, PROT_READ) = 0 <0.000007>5266 1282662179.860985 mprotect(0x34ca01b000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0 <0.000006>5266 1282662179.861009 munmap(0x2b5f2bc92000, 189020) = 0 <0.000011>5266 1282662179.861082 open("/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive", O_RDONLY) = 4 <0.000008>5266 1282662179.861113 fstat(4, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=56442560, ...}) = 0 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.861166 mmap(NULL, 56442560, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 4, 0) = 0x2b5f2bcc3000 <0.000007>5266 1282662179.861192 close(4) = 0 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.861269 brk(0) = 0x1ad1f000 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.861290 brk(0x1ad40000) = 0x1ad40000 <0.000006>5266 1282662179.861444 open("/usr/share/locale/locale.alias", O_RDONLY) = 4 <0.000009>5266 1282662179.861483 fstat(4, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=2528, ...}) = 0 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.861944 read(4, "", 4096) = 0 <0.000006>5266 1282662179.861968 close(4) = 0 <0.000005>5266 1282662179.861989 munmap(0x2b5f2f297000, 4096) = 0 <0.000009>5264 1282662179.863063 wait4(-1, 0x7fff8d813064, WNOHANG, NULL) = -1 ECHILD (No child processes)...
KARBON – A trace file analyzer
KARBON – A trace file analyzer• Is a general purpose application profiler
based on system call trace files• It traces file descriptors and reports detailed
I/O statistics for files, network sockets and FIFO pipes
• It analyzes the child processes and creates process graphs and process trees
• It can detect the “Hot spots” of an application•Custom analyzing tools can be created on-
demand using the development API
KARBON – Application block diagram
Preprocessing Tool
AnalyzerFilte
r
Presenter
Presenter
Results
•Time utilization of the traced application
Results
•Time utilization of the traced application
Results
•Time utilization of the traced application
Results
•Overall system call time for filesystem I/O
• Reminder: Kernel buffers were dropped before every test▫Possible caching effect inside the hypervisor
[ms] Reading Writing Seeking Total
Bare metal
490,861.354 2,054.354 21,594.583 524,872.823
KVM 38,391.715 36,422.440 122,769.518 244,406.512
XEN 38,111.980 20,930.382 102,769.901 210,247.468
Results
•Overall system call time for UNIX Sockets
[ms] Receiving Sending Bind, Listen
Connecting
Total
Bare metal
993.884 10,313.304 4.251 5.259 11,301.588
KVM 59,637.942 164,655.077 7.412 13.656 223,872.164
XEN 97,823.986 550,050.484 5.014 8.493 652,784.010
Results
•Most time-consuming miscellaneous system calls
System call Bare metal KVM XEN
wait4() 178,200.34 316,829,30 388,885,57gettimeofday() (No trace) 219,780,33 218,018,63nanosleep() (No trace) 12,250,12 12,029,30time() (No trace) (No trace) 9,081,94
rt_sigreturn() 150,943 1,685,285 9,271,061setitimer() 23,245 698,785 223,669
Conclusion•Physical Disk▫KVM can achieve better performance than XEN,
reaching 70 - 98% of the native speed▫Best performance achieved on 6 CPUs/6
workers (7Gb RAM) with 81% of the native speed
•Network (Xrootd)▫XEN can achieve better performance than KVM,
reaching 73 - 90% of the native speed▫Best performance achieved again on 6 CPUs / 6
workers (7G RAM) with 92% of the native speed
Conclusion•Some disk I/O operations (read) appear to be faster
inside the Virtual Machine•Some of them appear to be slower (seek, write)▫Possible caching effect even on direct disk access
•Network I/O▫ TCP under XEN looks fine, whereas with KVM there are some issues▫ UNIX Sockets seem to have significant penalty inside the VMs
•Some miscellaneous system calls take longer inside the VM▫Time-related functions (gettimeoftheday, nanosleep)
Used for paravirtualized implementation of other system calls?
Other uses of the tools
•SystemTAP could be used by nightly builds in order to detect hanged applications
•KARBON can be used as a general log file analysis program
Future work• Benchmark VMs with a disk image file residing on a RAID
Array• Benchmark many concurrent KVM virtual machines with
total memory exceed the overall system memory – Exploit NPT
• Test the PCI Pass-through for network cards (KVM) – Test VT-d
• Convert the benchmark application from python to pure C• Repeat the benchmarks with the optimized ROOT input
files• Test again the KVM Network performance with • Recompile the kernel with CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK