Dec 07, 2010

MooseFS usage experiences

It's been three months since I've replaced gluster with moose and I've had a few questions about it's performance so far.
Info on the subject in the internets is a bit scarce, so here goes my case. Keep in mind however that it's not a stress-benchmark of any kind and actually rather degenerate use-case, since loads aren't pushing hardware to any limits.

Guess I can say that it's quite remarkable in a way that it's really unremarkable - I just kinda forgot it's there, which is probably the best thing one can expect from a filesystem.

My setup is 4 physical nodes at most, with 1.3 TiB of data in fairly large files (3361/52862 dirs/files, calculated average is about 250 MiB for a file).
Spanned fs hosts a storage for distfiles, media content, vm images and pretty much anything that comes in the compressed form and worth keeping for further usage. Hence the access to files is highly sequential in most cases (as in reading gzip, listening to mp3, watching a movie, etc).
OS on the nodes is gentoo/exherbo/fedora mix and is a subject to constant software updates, breakages and rebuilds. Naturally, mfs is proven to be quite resilent in these conditions, since it doesn't depend on boost or other volatile crap and just consists of several binaries and configuration files, which work fine even with defaults right out of the box.
One node is a "master", eating 100 MiB RAM (115 VSZ) on the few-month average (according to atop logs). Others have metalogger slaves which cost virtually nothing (<3 MiB VSZ), so it's not a big deal to keep metadata fully-replicated just in case.
Chunkservers have 500 GiB - 3 TiB space on btrfs. These usually hang on 10 MiB RAM, occasional 50-100 MiB in VSZ, though it's not swapped-out, just unused.
Cpu usage for each is negligible, even though mfsmaster + mfsmount + mfschunkserver node is Atom D510 on miniITX board.
mfsmount maintains persistent connection to master and on-demand to chunkservers.
It doesn't seem to mind if some of them are down though, so I guess it's perfectly possible to upload files via mfsmount to one (the only accessible) node and they'll be replicated to others from there (more details on that below), although I'm unsure what will happen when you'll try to retrieve chunks, stored exclusively on inaccessible nodes (guess
it's easy enough to test, anyway).
I use only one mfsmount on the same machine as master, and re-export (mostly for reading) it over NFS, SFTP, WebDAV and plain HTTP to other machines.
Re-export is there because that way I don't need access to all machines in cluster, which can be in a separate network (i.e. if I access fs from work), plus stuff like NFS comes out of the box (no need for separate client) and have a nice FS-Cache support, which saves a lot of bandwidth, webdav/sftp works for ms-os machines as well and server-based replication saves more precious bandwidth all by itself.
FS bandwidth in my case in constant ~1 MiB read 24/7 plus any on-demand reading on speeds, which are usually slower than any single hdd (over slower network links like 100 Mbps LAN and WiFi), and using only a few threads as well, so I'm afraid I can't give any real-world stress results here.
On a local bulk-copy operations to/from mfs mount though, disk always seem to be a bottleneck, with all other parameters far below any possible limitations, but in my case it's a simple "wd green" low-speed/noise high-capacity disks or seagate/hitachi disks with AAM threshold set to lowest level via "hdparm -M" (works well for sound, but
I never really cared about how it affects speed to check).

Chunkservers' storage consists of idexed (AA/AABCD...) paths, according to chunk names, which can be easily retreived from master. They rely on fs scanning to determine which chunks they have, so I've been able to successfully merge two nodes into one w/o storing the chunks on different filesystems/paths (which is also perfectly possible).

Chunkservers talk to each other on p2p-basis (doesn't imply that they don't need connection to master, but bandwidth there doesn't seem to be an issue at all) to maintain requested replication goal and auto-balance disk space between themselves, so the free percentage tries to be equal on all nodes (w/o compromising the goal, of course), so with goal=2 and 4 nodes I have 30% space usage on backend-fs on both 500 GiB node and 3 TiB one.

Balancing seem to be managed by every chunkserver in background (not quite sure if I've seen it in any docs, but there's a "chunk testing" process, which seem to imply that, and can be tuned btw), according to info about chunk and other currently-available nodes' space utilization from master.

Hence, adding/removing nodes is a bliss - just turn it on/off, no configuration changes for other nodes are necessary - master sees the change (new/lost connection) and all the chunkservers start relocating/getting the chunks to restore the balance and maintain the requested goal. In a few hours everything will be balanced again.

Whole approach seem superior to dumb round-robin of the chunks on creation or rehashing and relocating every one of them on single node failure, and suggests that it might be easy to implement custom replication and balancing scheme just by rsync'ing chunks between nodes as necessary (i.e. to make most of small ssd buffer, putting most-demanded files' chunks there).
And indeed I've utilized that feature twice to merge different nodes and filesystems, although the latter is not really necessary, since chunkserver can work with several storage paths on different filesystems, but it's just seem irrational to keep several btrfs trees these days, as they can even span to multiple devices.
But the best part, enabling me not to look further for alternatives, is the simple fact that I've yet to see any problem in the stability department - it still just works. mfsmount never refused to give or receive a file, node daemons never crashed or came back up with a weird inconsistency (which I don't think is easy to produce with such simple setup/design, anyway).
Connection between nodes has failed quite often - sometimes my NIC/switch/cables went to 30% packet loss for no apparent reason, sometimes I've messed up openswan and ipsec or some other network setup, shut down and hard-rebooted the nodes as necessary, but such failures were always unnoticeable here, without any need to restart anything on the mfs level - chunkservers just reconnect, forget obsolete chunks and keep going about their business.
Well, there *was* one exception: one time I've managed to hard-reboot a master machine and noticed that mfsmaster has failed to start.
Problem was missing metadata.mfs file in /var/lib, which I believe is created on mfsmaster stop and checkpointed every hour to .back file, so, knowing there was no changes to fs in the last few minutes, I just removed the .back suffix and everything started just fine.
Doing it The Right Way would've involved stopping any of the metalogger nodes (or signaling it somehow) and retreiving this file from there, or just starting master on that node, updating the mfsmaster ns entry, since they're identical.

Of course, it's just a commodity hardware and lighter loads, but it's still way above other stuff I've tried here in virtually every aspect, so thumbs up for moose.

Member of The Internet Defense League