io performance n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
IO performance PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
IO performance

IO performance

95 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

IO performance

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. IO performance Lessons

  2. Disclaimer • I won’t be mentioning good things here. • In hindsight things look obvious • No plan survives the first data intact

  3. Design problems • T/P is way too complex for an average HEP physicist turned programmer • This lead to copy/paste approach • Even good documentation can’t help that • Code bloating • Very difficult to remove obsolete persistent classes/converters • Tools needed added late: custom compressions/DataPool/ only now working on error matrix compression • No unit tests infrastructure • Should have had a way to create “full” object • Should have forced loopback t-p-t • No central place to control what’s written out • No tools for automatic code generation • Fabrizio spent 3 months just fixing part of Trigger classes

  4. management problems • At least some performance tests should have been done before full system deployment. At least to understand what affects performance. • Trying to understand changes in what was written out after the fact is not the way things should go. • Way too many tools (ara, mana, event loop …) • No real support • Code bloat • Opportunity cost • Still there is no one good tool • that people would be happy to use • would provide us possibility to monitor and optimize • to start thinking about analysis meta data storage and access one year after data taking started is a bit late.

  5. management problems • No recommended way to do analysis • Waiting to see what people would be doing is not the best idea. People can’t know if their way will scale or not. • We can’t test all approaches and surely can’t optimize sites for all of them Group production AOD G Grid Local CPU bound IO bound G D3PDmaker NTUPLE G L D3PD G Skim/slim download PROOF based Analysis L LG Simple ROOT Analysis

  6. DPD problems • Having thousands of simple variables in DPD files is just so … not OO. • DPDs are expensive to produce • Train based production will alleviate problem • If train production will not use tag db, tag db should be dropped. • Probably way too large – and difficult to overhaul. If we have problems finding out if AOD collection is used or not, problem is 10 times bigger with dpds • Too small • Should/could be merged using latest ROOT version • Even worse with skimmed/slimmed. No simple grid based merge tool? • No single, generally used framework to use them • In half a year it will be way to late to start thinking about all of this as people will be already used to their hacked together but working tools.

  7. DPD problems • Current situation • local disk • ROOT 5.28.00e • A lot of space for improvement! • Improvements to come • Proper basket size optimization • Too many reads with TTC • Multi-tree TTC • Now so much better that we are getting HDD seeks limited even for 100% of data read • Two jobs or one read/write job brings CPU efficiency down to unacceptable level • Calculations typically done in analysis jobs wont hide disk latency on 4 or 8 core CPU • Needs better file organization • Even reordering files would have sense

  8. NO efficiency feedback • Up to now we had no resource contention. That’s changing. • People would not mind running faster and more efficiently, but have no idea how good/bad they are and what to change. • Will someone see the effect of not turning TTC in grid based job? Not likely. Consequently won’t turn it on. • I don’t know how to optimally split task. Do you? • Can be changed relatively easily: once a week send a mail to all people that used grid on what they consumed, how efficient they were and what they can do to improve.

  9. My 2 cents • If one core is not 100% used when reading fully optimized file why bother with multicore things? • Due to very low “real” information density in production DPDs any analysis/slimming/skimming scheme is bound to be very inefficient. • A user that have done at least one round of slim/skim can opt for a map-reduce approach in form of proof. • But proof not an option for really large scale – production DPDs. • Thinking big – SkimSlimService • Organize large scale map-reduce at a set of sites capable of having all of the production DPDs on disk. • Has to return (register) produced skimmed/slimmed dataset in under 5 min. Limit size of the returned DS. • That eliminates 50% of all grid jobs. • Makes users produce 100 variable instead of 600 variable slims. • Relieves them of thinking about efficiency and gives result in 5 min instead of 2 days. • We don’t distribute DPDs. • We do optimizations.