Saturday, November 9, 2024

RocksDB benchmarks: large server, leveled compaction

I recently shared benchmark results for RocksDB a few weeks ago for both leveled and universal compaction on a small server. This post has results from a large server with leveled compaction. 

tl;dr

  • there are a few regressions from bug 12038
  • QPS for overwrite is ~1.5X to ~2X better in 9.x than 6.0 (ignoring bug 12038)
  • otherwise QPS in 9.x is similar to 6.x

Hardware

The server is an ax162-s from Hetzner with an AMD EPYC 9454P processor, 48 cores, AMD SMT disabled and 128G RAM. The OS is Ubuntu 22.04. Storage is 2 NVMe devices with SW RAID 1 and ext4.

Builds

I compiled db_bench from source on all servers. I used versions:
  • 6.x - 6.0.2, 6.10.4, 6.20.4, 6.29.5
  • 7.x - 7.0.4, 7.3.2, 7.6.0, 7.10.2
  • 8.x - 8.0.0, 8.3.3, 8.6.7, 8.9.2, 8.11.4
  • 9.x - 9.0.1, 9.1.2, 9.2.2, 9.3.2, 9.4.1, 9.5.2, 9.6.1 and 9.7.3
Benchmark

All tests used the default value for compaction_readahead_size and the block cache (LRU).

I used my fork of the RocksDB benchmark scripts that are wrappers to run db_bench. These run db_bench tests in a special sequence -- load in key order, read-only, do some overwrites, read-write and then write-only. The benchmark was run using 40 threads. How I do benchmarks for RocksDB is explained here and here. The command line to run the tests is: bash x3.sh 40 no 1800 c48r128 100000000 2000000000 byrx iobuf iodir

The tests on the charts are named as:
  • fillseq -- load in key order with the WAL disabled
  • revrangeww -- reverse range while writing, do short reverse range scans as fast as possible while another thread does writes (Put) at a fixed rate
  • fwdrangeww -- like revrangeww except do short forward range scans
  • readww - like revrangeww except do point queries
  • overwrite - do overwrites (Put) as fast as possible
Workloads

There are three workloads, all of which use 40 threads:

  • byrx - the database is cached by RocksDB (100M KV pairs)
  • iobuf - the database is larger than memory and RocksDB uses buffered IO (2B KV pairs)
  • iodir - the database is larger than memory and RocksDB uses O_DIRECT (2B KV pairs)

A spreadsheet with all results is here and performance summaries with more details are here for byrx, iobuf and iodir.

Relative QPS

The numbers in the spreadsheet and on the y-axis in the charts that follow are the relative QPS which is (QPS for $me) / (QPS for $base). When the value is greater than 1.0 then $me is faster than $base. When it is less than 1.0 then $base is faster (perf regression!).

The base version is RocksDB 6.0.2.

Results: byrx

The byrx tests use a cached database. The performance summary is here

This chart shows the relative QPS for a given version relative to RocksDB 6.0.2. The y-axis doesn't start at 0 in the second chart to improve readability for some lines.

Summary:
  • fillseq is worse from 6.0 to 8.0 but stable since then
  • overwrite has large improvements late in 6.0 and small improvements since then
  • fwdrangeww has small improvements in early 7.0 and is stable since then
  • revrangeww and readww are stable from 6.0 through 9.
Results: iobuf

The iobuf tests use an IO-bound database with buffered IO. The performance summary is here

This chart shows the relative QPS for a given version relative to RocksDB 6.0.2. The y-axis doesn't start at 0 in the second chart to improve readability for some lines.

Summary:
  • bug 12038 explains the drop in throughput for overwrite since 8.6.7
  • otherwise QPS in 9.x is similar to 6.0
Results: iodir

The iodir tests use an IO-bound database with O_DIRECT. The performance summary is here

This chart shows the relative QPS for a given version relative to RocksDB 6.0.2. The y-axis doesn't start at 0 in the second chart to improve readability for some lines.

Summary:
  • the QPS drop for overwrite in 8.6.7 occurs because the db_bench client wasn't updated to use the new default value for compaction readahead size
  • QPS for overwrite is ~2X better in 9.x relative to 6.0
  • otherwise QPS in 9.x is similar to 6.0
todo








No comments:

Post a Comment

Speedb vs RocksDB on a large server

I am happy to read about storage engines that claim to be faster than RocksDB. Sometimes the claims are true and might lead to ideas for mak...