topic Re: MSCP performance. in Operating System - OpenVMS

MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:40:03 GMT

I'm adding two VAX 4000-105A's (128MB each, DSSI connection for common system disk - v6.2) into a cluster of 4 Alpha's (v7.2-2) and two other VAX's (also v6.2 but they have their own system disks). The "new" VAX's will have the majority of their data storage on an HSG80 subsystem, MSCP served up through the Alpha's. The disks presented are 2 - 72GB - 3 x 36GB - 15,000rpm - Raid 3/5 arrays. I was doing some restoring and moving of data using one of the new VAX's and found that disk access seemed very "poor". Backing up from one disk to the other maintained a steady rate of ~26 DIO's per second. I looked at the Alpha doing the MSCP serving and found that Extra Fragment, Fragmented and Buffer Wait Rates counters were very active. I ran Autogen on the serving node (which really wasn't busy doing other things at the time)while the disk activity was going on, and it told me :

MSCP_BUFFER parameter information:
Feedback information.
Old value was 312, New value is 312
MSCP server I/O rate: 2 I/Os per 10 sec.
I/Os that waited for buffer space: 10021
I/Os that fragmented into multiple transfers: 26916

I would think that with counts that high, it would have suggested a higher value for MSCP_BUFFER .

Of course the VAX is limited to 10Mb/half network/disk access (Alpha's are 100Mb/full), but it just seems to be very sluggish. Any tuning hints to help this situation? Yes the systems have to remain on the VAX platform for now :-(

Thanks in advance,
Art

Re: MSCP performance.

John Eerenberg — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:33:22 GMT

Set mscp_buffer to a minimum of 2048. You could start lower, but I think this would solve your problem (it did for me) and review it to make sure there are no more fragmented IO's (of increase mscp_buffer to eventually eliminate the fragmented IO's).

Also, check sysmwcnt to make sure you aren't doing any sysgem faults (look at $ monitor page. system faults should average near zero: 0.1/sec or less).

If you are doing backup with /block=32767, I wouldn't expect much more then 40 IO's/sec (with approx 60-70 IO's/sec being the max).

Of course, 128MB of RAM will make the above a little tight if too much memory needs to be consumed by various tasks.

john

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:02:51 GMT

Ok thanks...I'll set MSCP_BUFFER on the Alpha's to 2048. On sort of the same topic, is it possible to designate which node will do the serving? At first I thought I had control by mounting the disk clusterwide from the Alpha that I wanted to be the server, but this behavior isn't as consistent as I thought. Short of turning MSCP_SERVE_ALL off on the other Alpha's (which isn't really what I want in case failover is needed), is there some way to provide "weighting" of one Alpha over the other?

Thanks again,
Art

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:05:52 GMT

Oh and the backups/restores I was citing were after I had "exploded" the savesets from tape ie. I was moving directory trees around...blocksize doesn't enter into it. The tape restore to the served disks was also very "painful" even though the savesets were blocksize=65024 from a TZ88.

It's 1995 all over again,
Art

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:27:51 GMT

Art,
is the MSCP link somehow shared with a DECnet circuit so that you can access the DECnet line counters on both nodes?
$ MCR NCP SHOW KNOW LINES COUNTERS

In the past when I thought that the speed was too slow I was able to detect problems in the network infrastructure (triple termination, exceeded cable length, ...) that way.

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:37:32 GMT

There's only one ethernet interface on my 4000's, other than not having heartbeat set correctly on the transceiver and a fair number of collisions, I don't see too many problems Decnet-wise:

$ mcr ncp show know line count

Known Line Counters as of 12-APR-2004 12:34:01

Line = ISA-0

>65534 Seconds since last zeroed
12124698 Data blocks received
1918395 Multicast blocks received
0 Receive failure
>4294967294 Bytes received
855675874 Multicast bytes received
0 Data overrun
18590116 Data blocks sent
124221 Multicast blocks sent
686907 Blocks sent, multiple collisions
4422802 Blocks sent, single collision
81400 Blocks sent, initially deferred
>4294967294 Bytes sent
12781118 Multicast bytes sent
378 Send failure, including:
Excessive collisions
>65534 Collision detect check failure
0 Unrecognized frame destination
0 System buffer unavailable
0 User buffer unavailable

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:21:44 GMT

Ah, OK.
Another thing I sometimes try is run a test with DTSEND on both nodes - testing both directions.

It might be necessary to assign a username/password to the DTR object on the remote node. Then I do:
$ mcr dtsend
_Test: DATA/NODENAME=remote/PRINT/SECONDS=60/SPEED=10000000

I am doing this from memory, but there is online help and there are different test available - see /TYPE=

Re: MSCP performance.

John Eerenberg — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:58:07 GMT

> 378 Send failure, including: Excessive collisions
You may want to check if your ethernet has a hardware problem somewhere.
Personal opinion/guideline: One can see collisions and be just fine; one should never see excessive collisions. Maybe this is just a sideaffect of mscp_buffer being too small.

> Ok thanks...I'll set MSCP_BUFFER on the Alpha's to 2048.
If you have the memory, I would do a min_mscp_buffer=2048 on the VAXes and a min_mscp_buffer=4096 on the Alphas. Both are overkill, but I think they are worth it. Saved my bacon once when a CI adaptor failed and a VAX started MSCP'ing over the ethernet.

> On sort of the same topic, is it possible to designate which node will do the serving?
The LAVc switches between all available ethernet controllers (actually any supported cluster interface) using the least busy path. Even though you have only one 10Mb/s card on the VAX, if your Alphas have two or more NICs, packets will be sent over the least busy path. There is a way to control traffic by nic card, but not by system (short of mscp_serve_all=0, I haven't seen it). Personal opinion, if the max speed is limited to 10Mb/s, I would not worry about which system actually does the MSCP serving; the overhead is extremely low given your configuration.

fwiw - I have mscp_server_all turned on for all my nodes and clusters whether they need it or not (just make sure cluster_authorize.dat is correctly setup). The overhead this causes is debatable (I've never seen it be a problem no matter what workload I throw at it -- your mileage may vary). The extra redundancy this gives is invaluable for me.

john

Re: MSCP performance.

Keith Parris — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:33:20 GMT

You may find $MONITOR MSCP and $SHOW DEVICE/SERVED to be useful.

You might also want to check for SCS credit waits on the SYSAP connection between the MSCP disk class driver on the VAX and the MSCP server in the Alphas. Use $SHOW CLUSTER/CONTINUOUS and ADD CIRCUITS,CONNECTIONS,REM_PROC_NAME,CR_WAITS
and look for large values which tend to increase over time in the CR_WAITS field.

> is it possible to designate which node will do the serving?

Yes. The MSCP_LOAD parameter can be used to control this. Originally MSCP_LOAD was a binary switch: 0 meant no serving and 1 meant enable serving. This was expanded to retain these two original values but also allow you to specify a load capacity rating for a node. If you set the MSCP_LOAD parameter significantly higher on one node, it will tend to be preferred as the server. The units are in nominal capacity in I/Os per second. The default value of 1 corresponds to a fixed value of 340 on Alpha (for those with VMS source listings, this code is in file [MSCP.LIS]MSCP.LIS, routine LM_INIT_CAPACITY). Anything above 1 is used as the actual load capacity value, so a value of 2 is the lowest possible fixed value, and can be used on a node if you wish to avoid MSCP-serving (except as a last resort) on that node. To avoid any MSCP-serving on a node at all, ever, you would set MSCP_LOAD to zero.

Re: MSCP performance.

Cass Witkowski — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:00:19 GMT

Can you describe your ethernet network in a little more detail. When you talk about having a transceiver with the wrong heartbeat setting are you using the H4000 with thickwire ethernet?

If you are using an ethernet switch you need to make sure the duplex and speed on the port on the switch that VAXs are connected to match that of the VAXs. If the VAX ethernet port is half duplex make sure the switch port that it is connected to is also half. You will see late collisions if the VAX is half and the switch is full.

Also if you are using a cut through switch then you could see a lot of runt or short packets that can chew up bandwidth.

If you are not using a switch at all but a repeater then you could be overoading the VAXs with all the network traffic.

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:12 GMT

Thanks all...lots of good ideas for me to think about so far!

Uwe - DTSEND - somehow, I'm totally unfamiliar with this diagnostic!! I'll check into it. What protocol is it actually using to do tests? Decnet?

Regarding setting MSCP_BUFFER on the Alpha's AND the VAX's, does this setting come into play on the VAX side? The VAX's are not (actively) serving any disk, the only local storage is the system disk and a page/swap disk.

Network topology - I'm using CentreCom twisted pair transceivers on the AUI ports of the 4000-105A's which are connected into an HP switch (the network folks say they have locked the ports at 10-Half). A Gig fiber uplink to a switch, down another Gig fiber link to another HP switch to the Alpha's running 100-Full. I wanted to get the VAX's onto the same switch as the Alpha's but there's a lack of free ports currently. There's a SQE test switch on the transceivers that is in the wrong position which is why I see Collision Detect Check failures. In the past this has never really been a "problem", just a max'ed counter.

Anyways, thanks again...I hope to be able to reboot the Alpha's this weekend for new MSCP sysgen settings, hopefully also get the VAX's over to the other switch.

Cheers,
Art

Re: MSCP performance.

John Eerenberg — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:39:54 GMT

> "Regarding setting MSCP_BUFFER on the Alpha's AND the VAX's, does this setting come into play on the VAX side? The VAX's are not (actively) serving any disk, the only local storage is the system disk and a page/swap disk."

It is handy to serve your local disks on the VAXen so other nodes can have access to them. Makes it more convenient so you don't have to login to that node, or alternatively, use sysman, etc. I happen to prefer setting up my systems this way.

Re: MSCP performance.

Ian Miller. — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:43:34 GMT

DTSEND uses DECnet task-to-task comms.
See
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/documentation/pdf/DECNET_OVMS_NET_UTIL.PDF
chapter 4

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:12:13 GMT

Hello Art,
yes it uses DECnet. I forgot to mention the /SIZE qualifier. It is a nice way to put load onto a link and test the throughput without being limited by the speed of some underlying disks or tapes.

Ian, thank you for providing a pointer.

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:19:26 GMT

Thanks Ian and Uwe. Now that I look at the manual I do remember reading about it/using it ... probably back in 1993 when the book was written!

I ran it against the node doing the MSCP serving:

_Test: data/print/stat/seconds=10/node=xxxxxx/size=512/type=seq
%NET-S-NORMAL, normal successful completion

Test Parameters:
Test duration (sec) 10
Target node "xxxxxx"
Line speed (baud) 1000000
Message size (bytes) 512

Summary statistics:
Total messages XMIT 14071 RECV 0
Total bytes XMIT 7204352
Messages per second 1407.10
Bytes per second 720435
Line thruput (baud) 5763480
%Line Utilization 576.348

I wish I could utilize my paycheque at 576% !!

Art

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:26:17 GMT

Well, I would use /SPEED=10000000 if this is a 10 MBit link on the VAX.

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:28:52 GMT

Ahh...that's a bit better:

_Test: data/print/stat/seconds=10/node=xxxxxx/size=512/type=seq/speed=10000000
%NET-S-NORMAL, normal successful completion

Test Parameters:
Test duration (sec) 10
Target node "xxxxxx"
Line speed (baud) 10000000
Message size (bytes) 512

Summary statistics:
Total messages XMIT 17134 RECV 0
Total bytes XMIT 8772608
Messages per second 1713.40
Bytes per second 877260
Line thruput (baud) 7018080
%Line Utilization 70.181

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:33:50 GMT

Yes, and what do you get the other way round?

Re: MSCP performance.

Art Wiens — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:39:41 GMT

_Test: data/print/stat/seconds=10/node=yyyyyy/size=512/type=seq/speed=100000000
%NET-S-NORMAL, normal successful completion

Test Parameters:
Test duration (sec) 10
Target node "yyyyyy"
Line speed (baud) 100000000
Message size (bytes) 512

Summary statistics:
Total messages XMIT 17957 RECV 0
Total bytes XMIT 9193984
Messages per second 1795.70
Bytes per second 919398
Line thruput (baud) 7355184
%Line Utilization 7.355

Re: MSCP performance.

Uwe Zessin — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:43:15 GMT

So, the network looks OK to me. The 7% looks a bit silly, but of course the VAX cannot receive with 100 MBit/second.