1. An Adaptable Benchmark for MPFS Performance Testing A Master Thesis Presentation Yubing Wang Advisor: Prof. Mark Claypool

2. Outline of the Presentation Background MPFS Benchmarking Approaches Benchmarking Testbed Performance Data Conclusion Future Work

3. SAN File System Storage Area Networks (SAN)  NAS + Fibre Channel + Switch + HBA (Host Based Adapter).  Architecture SAN File Systems  An architecture for distributed file systems based on shared storage.  Fully exploits the special characteristics of Filbre Channel-based LANs.  Key feature is that clients transfer data directly from the device across the SAN  Advantages include: availability, load-balancing and scalability

4. MPFS Drawbacks of Conventional Network File Sharing  Server is the bottleneck.  Store-and-forward model results in higher response time. MPFS Architecture  Server only involves in control data (metadata) operations while file data operations are performed directly between clients and disks  MPFS uses standard protocols such as NFS and CIFS for control and metadata operations.  Potential advantages include better scalability and higher availability.

5. File System Benchmarks SPEC SFS Only measure the server performance Only generate RPC load NFS protocol only Unix only NetBench Windows only CIFS protocol only

6. Ideal MPFS Benchmark Help in understanding MPFS performance. Be relevant to a wide range of applications. Be scalable and target both large and small files. Provide workloads across various platforms. Allow for fair comparisons across products.

7. Motivations Current File System benchmarks are not suitable for the MPFS performance measurement They only measure the server’s performance. They only target some specific file access protocols. MPFS is a new file access protocol and demands new file system benchmark The split-data-metadata architecture will prevail in the SAN industry. Performance is critical to SAN file system.

8. Performance Metrics Throughput  I/O rate, measured in operations/second  Data rate, measured in bytes/seconds Response Time  Overall average response time for all mixed operations.  Average response time for individual operation.  Measured in Msec/Op. Scalability  Number of client hosts supported by the system with acceptable performance Sharing  System throughput and response time when multiple clients access the same data

9. MPFS Benchmark Overview Application groups target the critical performance characteristics of MPFS. Application mix percentages are derived from the low-level NFS or CIFS operation mix percentages. The file set is scalable and targets both big files and small files. The file access pattern is based on an earlier file access trace study. The load-generating processes in each load-generator is Poisson distributed. The embedded micro-benchmarks measure how MPFS performs under intensive I/O traffics. The huge file set and random file selection avoids caching effect.

10. Application Groups The application group is a mix of system calls that mimic MPFS applications. The applications are selected by profiling some real-world MPFS applications. The applications include both I/O operations and metadata operations. The operation groups for Windows NT follow the file I/O calls used in the Disk Mix test of NetBench.

11. Application Mix Tuning The application mix percentage is derived from the low-level NFS or CIFS operation mix percentage. The default NFS operation mix percentage we use is the NFS version 3 mix published by SPEC SFS 2.0. The default CIFS operation mix percentage is the CIFS operation mix used in NetBench. We allow user to specify the mix percentage for their specific applications.

12. File Set Construction We build three types of file set with different file size distribution. We have small, medium and large file sets. The small file set comprises 88% of small files (<= 16 KB). The large file set comprises 18% of large files (>= 128MB). We build huge file set to avoid caching effect. The number of files and amount of data in our file set is scaled to the target load levels.

13. File Access Pattern Based on an empirical file system workload study. File Access Order: sequential access or random access File access locality: the same files tend to get the same type of access repeatedly. File access burst: certain file access pattern occurs in bursts. Overwrite/Append Ratio: pre-fetching and space allocation

14. Work Load Management Think time follows the exponential distribution. Operation selection is based on the specified mix percentage the operation context and file access patterns. Operation context is determined by profiling the MPFS applications.

15. File Sharing Mainly measure how the locking mechanism affects the performance. Include read and write sharing. Multiple processes in a single client access the same file simultaneously. Multiple clients access the same file simultaneously.

16. Embedded Micro-benchmarks Measure the I/O performance of MPFS. Include sequential read, sequential write, random read, random write and random read/write Report the throughput measured in megabytes/second for each I/O test

17. Caching A larger client cache or more effective client caching may greatly affect the performance measurement since our benchmark is in the application level. Huge file set and random file selection help to avoid the caching effect.

18. Testbed Configuration Fibre Channel Unix/NT Client Unix/NT Client Data Mover Unix/NT Client Unix/NT Client

19. System Monitors Network Monitor : - monitors the network states - collects the network traffic statistics I/O Monitor : - monitors the disk I/O activities - collects the I/O statistics CPU Monitor : - monitors the CPU usage Protocol Statistic Monitor : - collects the MPFS/NFS/CIFS statistics

20. Web Interface

21. Throughput and Response Time Generated Load Vs. Response Time for the MPFS Benchmarking testbed with 8 Solaris Clients

22. Scalability Measured Maximum Aggregate Throughput versus Number of Solaris Clients

23. Change of the Mix Percentage Generated Load Vs. Response Time for different operation group mixes

24. Comparison between NFS and MPFS Generated Load Vs. Response Time for three different MPFS and NFS Solaris client combinations

25. Conclusion (1) Our benchmark achieves four major goals: Helps in understanding MPFS performance  Measure throughput and response time  Measure the scalability  Measure the performance for each individual operation  Compare the performance of MPFS with that of NFS or CIFS. Generates realistic workload  Operations are selected by profiling the real-life MPFS applications.  File access patterns are derived from an empirical file system workload study.  File set construction mimics the real-world environment.

26. Conclusion (2) File set is scalable and target both large and small files  The number of files and amount of data in our file set is scaled to the target load levels.  The file sets are of different file size distribution. Provide workloads across various platforms.  Our benchmark supports both Unix and Windows NT systems.

27. Future Work Create more realistic workload  Build up a large set of MPFS trace archives  Develop a profiling model to characterize the traces Improve the scalability measurement  Our benchmark uses the number of clients (load generators) to represent the scalability.  The mapping between the load generator and client in a real-world application is subject to further investigation. Develop a more general workload model for SAN file systems  Different SAN file systems may have different implementation.  A general benchmark should be independent of the implementation