From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 049C66B7FB;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E7FBF2DECE;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A1AAA2DEBE;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A73D4277D;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:46 +0100 (CET)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210303095612.7475-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<20210303095612.7475-6-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<f3df01a9-71a6-9b20-dafa-3cdda78f2e72@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <570fbf9f-988c-c3a7-1475-ff0406ca590e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f3df01a9-71a6-9b20-dafa-3cdda78f2e72@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [restore.rs]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 proxmox-backup-qemu 05/11] access: use
bigger cache and LRU chunk reader
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 13:37:48 -0000
On 16/03/2021 21:17, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 03.03.21 10:56, Stefan Reiter wrote:
>> Values chosen by fair dice roll, seems to be a good sweet spot on my
>> machine where any less causes performance degradation but any more
>> doesn't really make it go any faster.
>>
>> Keep in mind that those values are per drive in an actual restore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Depends on new proxmox-backup.
>>
>> v2:
>> * unchanged
>>
>> src/restore.rs | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/restore.rs b/src/restore.rs
>> index 0790d7f..a1acce4 100644
>> --- a/src/restore.rs
>> +++ b/src/restore.rs
>> @@ -218,15 +218,16 @@ impl RestoreTask {
>>
>> let index = client.download_fixed_index(&manifest, &archive_name).await?;
>> let archive_size = index.index_bytes();
>> - let most_used = index.find_most_used_chunks(8);
>> + let most_used = index.find_most_used_chunks(16); // 64 MB most used cache
>
>
>
>>
>> let file_info = manifest.lookup_file_info(&archive_name)?;
>>
>> - let chunk_reader = RemoteChunkReader::new(
>> + let chunk_reader = RemoteChunkReader::new_lru_cached(
>> Arc::clone(&client),
>> self.crypt_config.clone(),
>> file_info.chunk_crypt_mode(),
>> most_used,
>> + 64, // 256 MB LRU cache
>
> how does this work with low(er) memory situations? Lots of people do not over
> dimension their memory that much, and especially the need for mass-recovery could
> seem to correlate with reduced resource availability (a node failed, now I need
> to restore X backups on my <test/old/other-already-in-use> node, so multiple
> restore jobs may run in parallel, and they all may have even multiple disks,
> so tens of GiB of memory just for the cache are not that unlikely.
This is a seperate function from the regular restore, so it currently
only affects live-restore. This is not an operation you would usually do
under memory constraints anyway, and regular restore is unaffected if
you just want the data.
Upcoming single-file restore too though, I suppose, where it might make
more sense...
>
> How is the behavior, hard failure if memory is not available? Also, some archives
> may be smaller than 256 MiB (EFI disk??) so there it'd be weird to have 256 cache
> and get 64 of most used chunks if that's all/more than it would actually need to
> be..
Yes, if memory is unavailable it is a hard error. Memory should not be
pre-allocated however, so restoring this way will only ever use as much
memory as the disk size (not accounting for overhead).
>
> There may be the reversed situation too, beefy fast node with lots of memory
> and restore is used as recovery or migration but network bw/latency to PBS is not
> that good - so bigger cache could be wanted.
The reason I chose the numbers I did was that I couldn't see any real
performance benefits by going higher, though I didn't specifically test
with slow networking.
I don't believe more cache would improve the situation there though,
this is mostly to avoid random access from the guest and the linear
access from the block-stream operation to interfere with each other, and
allow multiple smaller guest reads within the same chunk to be served
quickly.
>
> Maybe we could get the available memory and use that as hint, I mean as memory
> usage can be highly dynamic it will never be perfect, but better than just ignoring
> it..
If anything, I'd make it user-configurable - I don't think a heuristic
would be a good choice here.
This way we could also set it smaller for single-file restore for
example - on the other hand, that adds another parameter to the already
somewhat cluttered QEMU<->Rust interface.
>
>> );
>>
>> let reader = AsyncIndexReader::new(index, chunk_reader);
>>
>
From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 049C66B7FB;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E7FBF2DECE;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A1AAA2DEBE;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A73D4277D;
Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:46 +0100 (CET)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210303095612.7475-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<20210303095612.7475-6-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<f3df01a9-71a6-9b20-dafa-3cdda78f2e72@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <570fbf9f-988c-c3a7-1475-ff0406ca590e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:37:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f3df01a9-71a6-9b20-dafa-3cdda78f2e72@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [restore.rs]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 proxmox-backup-qemu 05/11]
access: use bigger cache and LRU chunk reader
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 13:37:48 -0000
On 16/03/2021 21:17, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 03.03.21 10:56, Stefan Reiter wrote:
>> Values chosen by fair dice roll, seems to be a good sweet spot on my
>> machine where any less causes performance degradation but any more
>> doesn't really make it go any faster.
>>
>> Keep in mind that those values are per drive in an actual restore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Depends on new proxmox-backup.
>>
>> v2:
>> * unchanged
>>
>> src/restore.rs | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/restore.rs b/src/restore.rs
>> index 0790d7f..a1acce4 100644
>> --- a/src/restore.rs
>> +++ b/src/restore.rs
>> @@ -218,15 +218,16 @@ impl RestoreTask {
>>
>> let index = client.download_fixed_index(&manifest, &archive_name).await?;
>> let archive_size = index.index_bytes();
>> - let most_used = index.find_most_used_chunks(8);
>> + let most_used = index.find_most_used_chunks(16); // 64 MB most used cache
>
>
>
>>
>> let file_info = manifest.lookup_file_info(&archive_name)?;
>>
>> - let chunk_reader = RemoteChunkReader::new(
>> + let chunk_reader = RemoteChunkReader::new_lru_cached(
>> Arc::clone(&client),
>> self.crypt_config.clone(),
>> file_info.chunk_crypt_mode(),
>> most_used,
>> + 64, // 256 MB LRU cache
>
> how does this work with low(er) memory situations? Lots of people do not over
> dimension their memory that much, and especially the need for mass-recovery could
> seem to correlate with reduced resource availability (a node failed, now I need
> to restore X backups on my <test/old/other-already-in-use> node, so multiple
> restore jobs may run in parallel, and they all may have even multiple disks,
> so tens of GiB of memory just for the cache are not that unlikely.
This is a seperate function from the regular restore, so it currently
only affects live-restore. This is not an operation you would usually do
under memory constraints anyway, and regular restore is unaffected if
you just want the data.
Upcoming single-file restore too though, I suppose, where it might make
more sense...
>
> How is the behavior, hard failure if memory is not available? Also, some archives
> may be smaller than 256 MiB (EFI disk??) so there it'd be weird to have 256 cache
> and get 64 of most used chunks if that's all/more than it would actually need to
> be..
Yes, if memory is unavailable it is a hard error. Memory should not be
pre-allocated however, so restoring this way will only ever use as much
memory as the disk size (not accounting for overhead).
>
> There may be the reversed situation too, beefy fast node with lots of memory
> and restore is used as recovery or migration but network bw/latency to PBS is not
> that good - so bigger cache could be wanted.
The reason I chose the numbers I did was that I couldn't see any real
performance benefits by going higher, though I didn't specifically test
with slow networking.
I don't believe more cache would improve the situation there though,
this is mostly to avoid random access from the guest and the linear
access from the block-stream operation to interfere with each other, and
allow multiple smaller guest reads within the same chunk to be served
quickly.
>
> Maybe we could get the available memory and use that as hint, I mean as memory
> usage can be highly dynamic it will never be perfect, but better than just ignoring
> it..
If anything, I'd make it user-configurable - I don't think a heuristic
would be a good choice here.
This way we could also set it smaller for single-file restore for
example - on the other hand, that adds another parameter to the already
somewhat cluttered QEMU<->Rust interface.
>
>> );
>>
>> let reader = AsyncIndexReader::new(index, chunk_reader);
>>
>