SONAS Performance: SPECsfs benchmark publication

Transcription

1 SONAS Performance February 2011 SONAS Performance: SPECsfs benchmark publication February 24, 2011

2 SPEC and the SPECsfs Benchmark SPEC is the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC is a prominent performance standardization organization with more than 60 member companies. SPEC publishes hundreds of different performance results each quarter covering a wide range of system performance disciplines (CPU, memory, power, and many more). For network file systems, SPEC provides one benchmark for two protocols, NFS and CIFS: SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 and SPECsfs_cifs, respectively. The benchmark is often abbreviated as SPECsfs, when the context is clear. Note: see back-up pages re: comparisons between the NFS and CIFS versions. SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 is the industry-standard benchmark for NAS systems using the NFS protocol. The benchmark does not replicate any single workload or application. Rather, it encapsulates scores of typical activities on a NAS storage system. SPECsfs is based on data submitted to the SPEC organization; the data were aggregated from tens of thousands of fileservers, using a wide variety of environments and applications. As a result, it is comprised of typical workloads and with typical proportions of data and metadata use as seen in real production environments. Reference: 2

3 SONAS Configuration used for SPECsfs SONAS Rel 1.2 (approximately 90 days before General Availability) 10 Interface Nodes; each with the maximum 144 GB of memory, Two 10GbE ports per Interface Node, only one port active, 8 Storage Pods; each with 2 Storage nodes and 240 drives Drive type: 15K RPM SAS hard drives Data Protection: the drives were configured in 208 RAID-5 arrays ( 8+P ) Benchmark used: SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3, abbreviated as SPECsfs for the remainder of this presentation. Configuration diagrams in the next two pages 3

4 SONAS Configuration used for benchmark: drives view. This represents no more than 1/3 of the max number of components: 10 IN s, with a max of 30; 8 storage pods, with a max of 30. The net capacity is 900 TB, about 1/4 of the max with SAS drives. (Note that the SONAS maximum raw capacity with 2 TB NL SAS drives is 14.4 PB.) SONAS scales easily by adding interface nodes and/or storage nodes independently. 4

5 Configuration: LUN view 26 LUNs per pod, 208 total. Single File System If this configuration is maxed out to 30 Interface Nodes, 30 storage pods, and 7200 SAS drives, it will still support a single file system. 5

6 Performance per File-System, by Vendor, based on all publications Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) IBM SONAS: World record establishes true scale-out The graph shows the maximum throughput per file-system, in thousands of IOPS, based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications, by vendor. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source: Numerical data and model names in backup pages 6

7 Another view: Performance per File-System, by Vendor, based on all publications Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) 7 The graph shows the maximum throughput per file-system, in thousands of IOPS, based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications, by vendor. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source:

8 SONAS SPECsfs Performance Maximum Throughput: 403,000 IOPS (*) Sets a new World Record for performance per file system, based on the SPECsfs benchmark What makes the SONAS configuration special is that it proves SONAS provides true scale out by combining: capacity and a single file system and leadership in performance (*) Based on 403,326 SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 ops per second with an overall response time of 3.23 ms 8

9 Why is this significant? All other vendors with SPECsfs publications either have significantly smaller file-system performance, or they increase their performance by strapping together many filers, or by aggregating multiple Filesystems. The Filesystem view is important for many reasons: Most applications are confined to a single Filesystem, so they cannot generally take advantage of aggregated benchmark performance Managing multiple Filesystems introduces complexity that in many cases is undesirable Multiple Filesystems make it difficult to eliminate performance hotspots, in real production environments. All other vendors compromise on some aspect: capacity over performance, or performance over true scale-out SONAS is the only one that does not compromise. SONAS: Do More with Less: More Performance More Capacity Less Complexity 9

10 Another view: Performance per File-System, by Vendor, based on all publications SONAS Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) SONAS 10 The graphs show the maximum throughput per file-system, in thousands of IOPS, based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications, by vendor. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source:

11 Aggregate performance: including all file-systems in each configuration Aggregate performance (K IOPS) EMC VNX: 8 file systems & 4 VNX 5700 racks aggregated together via a NAS gateway; All-SSD setup HP: 16 file systems, using many very small hard drives IBM SONAS: Single file-system: No compromise as it scales out Aggregated performance view: This shows that it is possible to increase performance using multiple file systems while compromising on other aspects: by imposing unnecessary complexity (aggregating file systems or aggregating racks) and using drives that are impractical. The graph shows the maximum throughput, in thousands of IOPS, listing all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications, by vendor. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source: results/sfs2008.html Numerical data and model names in backup pages 11

12 What about performance vs. capacity? The previous charts provided data that establish SONAS performance scales out without imposing unnecessary file-system complexity. But what about performance vs. capacity? The next three pages establish that SONAS scales out performance without compromising usable capacity: this is not a performance special configured with unrealistic drives just to make a benchmark number. This is a sensible configuration that provides ample capacity and can easily grow. 12

13 Performance per Filesystem vs. Capacity per Filesystem (TB) Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) All other vendors Capacity per Filesystem (TB) This graph shows that no other vendor comes close to scaling out both performance and capacity per file system. 13 The graph shows the maximum throughput (K iops) per file-system vs. file-system capacity (TB). Based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source: Numerical data and model names in backup pages

14 Performance per Filesystem vs. Capacity per Filesystem (TB) SONAS vs. all vendors using a single filesystem SONAS vs. all vendors using multiple filesystems Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) Performance per Filesystem (K IOPS) Capacity per Filesystem (TB) Capacity per Filesystem (TB) These graphs show that SONAS leads among single Filesystems and among multiple Filesystem setups The graphs show the maximum throughput (K iops) per file-system vs. file-system capacity (TB). Based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications Data as of February 22, 2011 Source: Numerical data and model names in backup pages 14

15 Aggregate Performance vs. Aggregate Capacity (TB) SONAS vs. all vendors using a single filesystem SONAS vs. all vendors using multiple filesystems 500 Aggregate performance (K IOPS) Aggregate performance (K IOPS) EMC VNX: 8 file systems Small aggregate cap All-SSD setup HP: 16 file systems Small aggregate cap SONAS provides true Scale-out All other vendors Using multiple FS s Aggregate Capacity (TB) Aggregate Capacity (TB) This graph shows that SONAS has achieved: 1. A new record in single Filesystem capacity, even independent of performance, based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications (as of Feb 22, 2011) 2. Performance leadership among single Filesystem configurations This graph shows that SONAS does not compromise when scaling out: 1. it increases performance in proportion with capacity 2. it provides ample capacity with room to grow (this SAS-based configuration is at 25% of its max capacity) The graphs show the aggregate maximum throughput (K iops) vs. aggregate capacity (TB). Based on all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source: Numerical data and model names in backup pages 15

16 Summary On the substance SONAS has set a new world record for performance per file system, based on the SPECsfs benchmark. SONAS succeeds without compromising other aspects to favor benchmark performance by combining capacity and a single file system and leadership in performance. No compromises: leadership in performance with a standard configuration that customers want to buy, using sensible, realistic drives. No compromises: leadership in performance with ample capacity to start with and a lot of room to grow. On the numbers game SONAS has set a new world record for performance per file system, based on the SPECsfs benchmark. Throughput of 403 K iops per file system (*). That s more than 3x the nearest publication (Avere Systems). SONAS has set a new world record for aggregate performance among all HDD-based systems, i.e., among all but one of the SPECsfs publications: 403 K SPECsfs iops (*). That s more than 20% the nearest aggregate throughput (HP, 16 filesystems). SONAS has set a new world record in single filesystem capacity: 903 TB exported capacity, based on all SPECsfs publications. That s more than 12x the nearest filesystem capacity (Panasas). (*) 403,326 SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 ops per second with an overall response time of 3.23 ms. All of the above are based on SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications as of February 22, Source: 16

17 BACKUP AND REFERENCES 17

18 Vendor Product Name SPECsfs IOPS ORT (ms) Num of Filesystems Exported Capacity (TB) Performance per Filesystem, based on SPECsfs Apple Inc. 3.0 GHz 8- Core Xserve Apple Inc. 3.0 GHz 8- Core Xserve Apple Inc. Xserve (Early 2009) with Snow Leopard Server Apple Inc. Xserve (Early 2009) with Leopard Server Avere Systems, Inc. FXT 2500 (6 Node Cluster) Avere Systems, Inc. FXT 2500 (2 Node Cluster) Avere Systems, Inc. FXT 2500 (1 Node) BlueArc CorporaQon BlueArc Mercury 100, Single Server BlueArc CorporaQon BlueArc Mercury 50, Single Server BlueArc CorporaQon BlueArc Mercury 100, Cluster BlueArc CorporaQon BlueArc Mercury 50, Cluster EMC CorporaQon Celerra VG8 Server Failover Cluster, 2 Data Movers (1 stdby) / Symmetrix VMAX Capacity per Filesystem (TB), based on SPECsfs EMC CorporaQon EMC VNX VG8 Gateway/EMC VNX5700, 5 X- Blades (including 1 stdby) EMC CorporaQon Celerra Gateway NS- G8 Server Failover Cluster, 3 Datamovers (1 stdby)/ Symmetrix V- Max Exanet Inc. ExaStore Eight Nodes Clustered NAS System Exanet Inc. ExaStore Two Nodes Clustered NAS System HewleY- Packard Company BL860c i2 2- node HA- NFS Cluster HewleY- Packard Company BL860c i2 4- node HA- NFS Cluster HewleY- Packard Company BL860c 4- node HA- NFS Cluster Hitachi Data Systems Hitachi NAS Pla\orm 3090, powered by BlueArc, Single Server Hitachi Data Systems Hitachi NAS Pla\orm 3080, powered by BlueArc, Single Server Hitachi Data Systems Hitachi NAS Pla\orm 3080 Cluster, powered by BlueArc Huawei Symantec N8500 Clustered NAS Storage System IBM IBM Scale Out Network AYached Storage, Version Isilon Systems IQ5400S LSI Corp. COUGAR NEC CorporaQon NV7500, 2 node acqve/acqve cluster NetApp, Inc. FAS NetApp, Inc. FAS6080 (FCAL Disks) NetApp, Inc. FAS NetApp, Inc. FAS3160 (FCAL Disks with Performance AcceleraQon Module) NetApp, Inc. FAS3140 (FCAL Disks) NetApp, Inc. FAS3140 (FCAL Disks with Performance AcceleraQon Module) NetApp, Inc. FAS3160 (FCAL Disks) NetApp, Inc. FAS3140 (SATA Disks with Performance AcceleraQon Module) NetApp, Inc. FAS3160 (SATA Disks with Performance AcceleraQon Module) NSPLab(SM) Performed Benchmarking SPECsfs2008 Reference Pla\orm (NFSv3) ONStor Inc. COUGAR ONStor Inc. COUGAR Panasas, Inc. Panasas AcQveStor Series Silicon Graphics, Inc. SGI InfiniteStorage NEXIS Table lists all SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 publications, by vendor. Data as of February 22, 2011 Source:

19 Can we compare the NFS vs. the CIFS version of SPECsfs? No. SPEC addresses this explicitly in the benchmark s user s guide: Section Comparing the NFS and CIFS Workloads While there are some similarities, especially with respect to the file sets each workload operations on, the NFS and CIFS workloads are not comparable and no conclusions about the ability of a given SUT to perform NFS versus CIFS operations should be made by comparing the NFS and CIFS results for that SUT. For example, if the CIFS results for an SUT are 20% higher than the NFS results for the same SUT, it should not be inferred that the SUT is better at delivering CIFS operations than NFS operations. The workloads are very different and no attempt was made to normalize the NFS and CIFS workloads. The only valid comparisons that can be made are between published results for different SUTs operating against the same SPECsfs2008 workload, either NFS or CIFS. " 19

20 Scale Out Network Attached Storage (SONAS)) Enterprise Class Solution for IP-based File System Storage One global repository for application and user files Single Filesystem - Up to 256 Filesystems per system Enterprise solution for all applications, departments and users Provision and monitor usage by application, file, department or whatever makes sense to the business Includes ability to report usage and access patterns for chargeback Capacity managed centrally Simplified management of petabytes of storage Independently scalable performance and capacity eliminates trade-offs IBM SONAS 20

21 SONAS Resources IBM SONAS website: IBM SONAS Redbooks IBM Scale Out Network Attached Storage (SONAS) Concepts available at: IBM Scale Out Network Attached Storage Architecture, Planning and Implementation Basics, available at: SG , SONAS Concepts SONAS ISV Partner World IBM SONAS Information Center Online access to all SONAS manuals index.jsp SG , SONAS Implementation 21

22 SPEC and SPECsfs are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on as of Feb 22, The comparisons presented above are based on the best performing NAS systems by all vendors listed. For the latest SPECsfs2008 benchmark results, visit 22