Presentation Title

download report

Transcript Presentation Title

Freakish Database Performance With Flash Storage 1

[email protected]

763.228.6463

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

Agenda

• Share some experience with using solid state/ flash storage for database workloads: • OLTP (2TB) • Warehouse (76TB) • Which workload characteristics can best leverage flash storage?

• What are some best practices

2

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

3

• • • •

The Challenge

Goal: 1.5 M trans in 5.5 hours Stretch goal: 1.5M trans in 2 hours Improve backup time What is possible if CPU, memory, storage, and network are not constrained?

OLTP Workload

Initial profile

• A brokerage house package • Batch cycle comprised of five Java programs (only one can be parallelized) • 1.5M transactions in 8 hours after extensive application and SQL tuning • 1.68TB uncompressed • Online backup time (backup, then gzip) in 36 hours

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

4

No holds barred

• 2 x 64 cores, 3.86 GHz, 1TB RAM • 86TB HDD, 256GB cache – 2 ms average response time • 1TB SSD • 10GbE

The Setup

• • • • •

Approaches

Enabled compression No database tuning All-HDD Mixed – SSD (logs & temp), HDD (data & indexes) All-SSD

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

5 Accept all default database settings out of the box

• STMM • • Auto runstats Auto online table reorg Results Mixed SSD (logs & temp) & HDD (data, indexes) All – SSD Disk Utilization Average IOPS Throughput Application Engines Uncompressed offline backup Compressed online/offline backup (SSD to HDD) 14% 26% < 1% busy 20 450KB/s 30 30 – 40 min 18 min

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

6 Application Engines Performance

• • • • Most improvements resulted from more CPUs for the application CPU intensive Verbose application logging • Application logs generated more IOs than database!

More application engines generating transactions to reduce batch elapsed time Low database IO profile

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

7 Final Results

Results Goal: 1.5M trans in 5.5 hours Stretch goal: 1.5M trans in 2 hours Improve backup time: 18 minutes v. 36 hours Best result: 1.5M trans in 1.1 hours! (All SSD)

Y Y Y Y

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

8

• • •

The Challenge

Aging servers and storage Data center floor space, cooling, and power consumption constraints Same or better performance

Warehouse Workload

Initial profile

• Servers and storage running 100% all day long • Maxed out at around 30 – 40 active users • Half-stroked disks to get performance and throughput

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

The Setup

Approach

Replacement will be very fast, very small, very simple

9

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

10 Database IO Improvement for Warehouse Workload 76TB IBM SSD v. Old HDD Sub-millisecond IO response time Sustained

• • • • •

Synchronous reads Synchronous writes Asynchronous reads Asynchronous writes Data pages per asynchronous request 21.8x

13.6x

17.6x

18.34x

1.8x

Note: Asynchronous IOs are ~18x faster, each asynchronous request is ~2x more effective due to 32K page size, that is a 36x improvement.

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

11 Benchmark Queries Improvement for Warehouse Workload 76TB IBM SSD v. Old HDD

Benchmark details • Actual IO and CPU intensive queries captured from business users • Runs weekly to monitor any performance degradation with respect to new and organic growth in the warehouse over time • Noise queries (75) + benchmark queries (25) = 100 Noise queries completed BM queries completed CPU utilization

All SSD

85% 100% (first time ever) 30%

Old

32% 64% (historically never reached 100) 100%

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

Benchmark Queries Speed Up Factor for Warehouse Workload (Plotted on Logarithmic Scale ) 76TB IBM SSD v. Old HDD 12

Speed up details • Average: 2.21 (log) or 163.96x faster • Median: 1.48 (log) or 29.96x faster (50% is at least ~30x faster) • Low: 0.56 (log) or 3.59x faster • High: 3.05 (log) or 1,113.56x faster • Time is measured as elapsed time (prepare + execute + fetch)

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

CPU Utilization 13

About 30% busy … BTW … We are also using disk level encryption (SED)

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

14 EXP30 Ultra SSD IO Specifications

• Each drive: SFF (1.8”), 1/5 of 1U, 387GB • IO drawer: 30 drives (6 x 5). Total raw capacity: 11.6TB (30 x 387GB). Cache: 3.1GB

• IOPS: 400K (100% read) / 280K (70/30 R/W) / 165K (100% write) • Two POWER 740 servers connected to one IO drawer • PCIe attached via GX++ adapter (8Gb/s) • Configured as 5+p LUNs (130GB LUNs)

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

15

Deployment Considerations

• IO adapter card (HBA) • At 120K – 400K IOPS per IO drawer, and 32K IO size, it is possible to saturate the HBA • Plan for adequate number of HBAs • If using SAN then be sure the bandwidth to the storage server is consistent along the whole path, for example, 8Gb/s • Balance IOs across HBAs and front end ports for even utilization • Be cautious about mixing flash storage & HDD drives in one HBA • Fewer, larger LUNs (500GB– 700GB) • LUNs do take up available system memory and CPU cycles on the server • Multiple logical volumes per LUN, no reason to stripe LV across LUNs • Use large page size (32K), extent size, but ensure that the database bufferpool(s) are adequately sized to accept big reads • Optimize data movement with less IOPS. It is not about driving up IOPS

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

16

Candidate Application Considerations

• High IO profile • Indexes, data • Database logs and temp spaces can take advantage of cache write through already, may not be the best candidates • Applications that can parallelize well to take advantage of higher IO throughput • Before we can process more transactions per second the applications need to be able to generate more transactions per second • For example, we needed to increase the number of application engines from 3 to 30 in order to generate 8x throughput in transaction rate • Applications that spend more time fetching result sets across a network, rather than executing complex queries in the database, will likely see less improvement (slow consumers) • client_idle_wait_time (ms) (time spent waiting for client/application to send its next request) • If the database spends more time waiting for client/application to send work then improving database response time alone will not improve throughput. • Increase application parallelism • Look for network congestion issues • call monreport.dbsummary(600), examine client_idle_wait_time

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation

17 Why Consider Flash Storage

• Greatly beneficial for high IO workloads • Much smaller footprint, much more energy efficient • Servers (11), IO drawers (7), power supply all fit in one rack!

• Achieve high performance, and throughput quickly without tuning • Performance, reliability, price

IBM Internal Use Only

© 2011 IBM Corporation