From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Wed Nov 18 02:31:09 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6109A3003B for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D9A13CA for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: by oiww189 with SMTP id w189so17103778oiw.3 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:31:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=F8l+KfVKfzZFJ4/2nCI94X1DXhkA0Ust6bXYs8omQZ0=; b=UIR6q7D+/pilnoJAs5lv0RIeBX/EKGlkhqw1ZSHbn2RRHZn2cRvELFhfI1ufAr3zbP iOWVZvQN1K4PkvDN/4ib5AgsJX4yCcN3aNlIcV67uLGJbflTRMUA4dfjbZt/Gst6I93d Q1fcX3ANSQa+JPxsuPzgXNPjnVpoRJYCxHDWd445lrcmocMg9tKgjs1v8psNinM5FrHI UUwZRkDZ85qed5kdXAX5TyZDibOdKEQF6++XfFa9qV0lTJ4X/Ov8KizFgGo/Bdxeeqvv 7M0XH4UxG66jptY2Eb/V2r2jTegtawKIDiXWUe+FNaxcCJXKRYlW8OxSzf0jJoKm8Bxc ndcA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.192.67 with SMTP id q64mr25298308oif.60.1447813868755; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.174.1 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:31:08 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: araujo@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: References: <8B37FEDC-218A-4071-8CB7-48361BB72B1D@langille.org> <14A0EA61-6545-42BB-910E-62C752D4396C@langille.org> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:31:08 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Measuring ZFS configuration differences From: Marcelo Araujo To: Dan Langille Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:09 -0000 2015-11-18 10:23 GMT+08:00 Dan Langille : > > > On Nov 17, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Marcelo Araujo > wrote: > > > > 2015-11-18 3:14 GMT+08:00 Dan Langille : > > > >> > >> On Nov 12, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Marcelo Araujo > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-11-12 6:34 GMT+08:00 Dan Langille : > >> > >>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Following up on the discussions during EuroBSDCon 2015 (Stockholm) > >>> during the FreeBSD Developer > >>>> Summit regarding various ZFS configuration settings, I write to star= t > >>> our implementation phase now that some > >>>> usual suspects have joined the list. > >>>> > >>>> re https://wiki.freebsd.org/201510DevSummit/Performance > >>>> > >>>> I think the first order of business is granting access rights to the > >>> server (varm) in question: > >>>> > >>>> http://dan.langille.org/2015/07/19/varm/ > >>>> > >>>> During the workshop, mention was made of serial access. I can arran= ge > >>> that. > >>>> > >>>> The server has IPMI, however, my first thought: > >>>> > >>>> 1 - connect a USB-serial cable to varm & link that to another server > in > >>> my rack. > >>> > >>> Marcelo: At EuroBSDCon, was it you who mentioned a particular > >>> configuration for the test machine which made > >>> it easy to configure and run tests? Was it PXE booting or something? > >>> > >>>> 2 - create a jail in that server and give it access to that serial > >>> connection > >>>> 3 - redirect incoming port XYZ to that jail via a public-key-only ss= h > >>> connection > >>>> 4 - give people access > >>>> > >>>> Any suggestions? > >>> > >>> =E2=80=94 > >>> Dan Langille > >>> http://langille.org/ > >>> > >>> > >> Hello Dan, > >> > >> Yes, was me :) > >> > >> I mention about zopkio test framework. > >> I gave a presentation last weekend at PyCon Hong Kong about it. > >> > >> Here is my slides: > >> > http://www.slideshare.net/araujobsd/functional-and-scale-performance-test= s-using-zopkio > >> > >> The good of Zopkio is, we can write tests at once and run it as much a= s > we > >> want in different machines. Also Zopkio depends of Naarad, that can > parse a > >> CSV file and create metrics and SLA over those metrics, plot graphs an= d > so > >> on. Pretty nice tool!!! > >> > >> I'm wondering if we could start to test something and maybe show it at > >> AsiaBSDCon and BSDCon(Canada) next year? What do you think? > >> What I need right now would be a list of tests that we want to perform > as > >> well as what parameters we would like to take as metrics to compare.\ > >> > >> > >> For tests, we can start with this list: > >> https://github.com/dlangille/zfs_benchmarks/issues > >> > >> We can start as soon as I figure out how to provide access to the > >> testers. See above re serial connection. > >> > >> I want to provide access, but I want to keep access restricted to only > >> this box and not to the rest of my home LAN. I plan to do this via a > >> VLAN. > >> > >> I could fire up a Rasperberry Pi and allow ssh into that. Will that b= e > >> enough > >> power for what you need to do? > >> > >> > > First of all, thanks to share the tests cases. > > > > If I use zopkio, the best would be access SSH direct to the target > machine > > where I need to run the tests. For zopkio, I need to have my SSH KEY on > the > > target machine. > > I am OK with this. > > > As I don't know your network, maybe what you could do is: Via > RasperBerry, > > forward the SSH to the target machine, I will pass-through via your > > RasperBerry where you can control the access for the rest of your LAN. > > > > Another approach could be, two different subnets and a firewall. Or as > you > > said, VLANS. > > I will be doing VLANS, which have yet to be set up. > > The target system will have ZFS pools can be configured for different > tests (i.e. raidz2 vs raidz3). > This will involve gpart etc because the drives & pools will need to be > 'wiped' between different test > runs. > > I seem to recall someone suggesting PXE boot and configuring the system > remotely. Does anyone > recall that? That aspect of the discussion was not recorded: > https://wiki.freebsd.org/201510DevSummit/Performance > > Bapt@ mentioned that, this is the way how we are doing in another project. But in my point of view, it is not a must for our case! The PXE wold be good if we try to test different of OS flavors, or build different images. Best, --=20 --=20 Marcelo Araujo (__)araujo@FreeBSD.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org \/ \ ^ Power To Server. .\. /_)