JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons1 AFS Server Performance Comparisons Bo Tretta Kim Kimball Jet Propulsion Laboratory Information Services - FIL Service SLAC AFS Best Practices Workshop March 24, 2004

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons2 2 Performance benchmarks of various hardware configurations Range of ages for hardware Different AFS versions Most hardware is already in operation and limits the testing we can perform Partitioned network Testing was performed on both sides of the network firewall. Operational Implications

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons3 3 Can we use less expensive hardware and still meet performance goals?

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons4 4 Cell Configuration At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, the AFS cell is configured with a firewall that splits the database servers as well as the fileservers.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons5 5 Internet File Servers Database Servers Firewall Flight Ops Firewall Clients File Servers Database Servers Clients Database Servers File Servers Test Cell afs06, afs07, afs20

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons6 6 Benchmarking First assessment of OpenAFS fileserver hardware using Andrew Benchmark. Initial goal: Determine if further assessment of inexpensive fileservers is warranted – without wasting time and resources in the initial trials.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons7 7 Methodology Compare Andrew Benchmark results from inexpensive Intel-based fileservers with results from existing Sun Solaris fileservers.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons8 8

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons9 9 Performance test from a client outside of the firewall

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons10 Observations afslinux02 was not performing the same as afslinux01 which is identical hardware. After examining afslinux02, it was found that the L2 cache module was not installed. The subsequent tests were performed with the L2 cache module installed.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons11 Performance test from a client outside of the firewall with L2 cache installed

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons12 Performance test from a client inside of the firewall. Did not test to the test cell systems because the production servers can not be modified.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons13 Conclusions Inexpensive hardware for OpenAFS fileservers is not ruled out. Follow on: Proceed to stress testing to determine feasible transaction rates.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons14 Examining a Myth Expensive “big iron” is frequently purchased because “we know it will get the job done.” The result can be a collection of a small number of expensive fileservers.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons15 But… A larger number of inexpensive fileservers may provide equivalent performance. It may be that the initial investment in the larger number of less expensive fileservers does not significantly differ from the smaller collection of “big iron” for a given aggregate transaction load.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons16 Benefits Initial cost aside, the “more and cheaper fileserver” approach offers:  Inexpensive incremental increase in capacity.  Cost effective redundancy.  Better manageability.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons17 Cost effective redundancy If a fileserver fails, it can be immediately replaced, with similar (or identical) hardware kept for this purpose.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons18 Better manageability We theorize that it will be easier to take a machine out of service when it houses less RW data.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons19 Assumption That the time required to move the Read/Write volumes in the OpenAFS namei implementation does not increase to a point that volume moves are truly abysmal.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons20 Benefit It will be easier to recover from unexpected hardware failure. It’s easier to justify a “spare server” at $10,000 than at $100,000.

JPLIS-FILServer Performance Comparisons21 Contact Information Bo Tretta – Kim Kimball –