Exablox testing journal
-
Ignorance ahoy! I really didn't understand at all how these things work and the following will probably illuminate that, hopefully I'll learn more!
My primary concern (curiosity? frustration?) is how the bleeping heck do they claim 100% space utilization. So this means you toss in a 1TB drive, it appears with 1TB more free space for you to use. This is basically anathema to me when they claim to have your data backed up and safe - to the point where you can just yank a drive out and it'll continue on it's merry way. As we all know, with RAID to get your data backed up it's usually a 50% space penalty (RAID1 / 10). Knowing that the answer probably isn't "witchcraft" I set about trying to figure it all out. The following is my super high level guess and assumptions and I'm probably wrong about half of it.
Object Based Storage is the heart of the answer, I'm pretty sure. My one sentence understand of it is: cut data into chunks, number the chunks, hash them?, store them across a couple (3?) drives. It appears that this is very similar to RAID in that the data is duped; where I know I'm missing something key is that you don't get 1:1 utilization if you're duping data anywhere. Impossible right? Yes. My best guess is that they do take a penalty from duping data, but they MUST recoup it somewhere!
Taking the units I have as the working example: put in 4x4TB drives, got 14.4TB usable storage out. That's not unreasonable to lose some capacity to file system, formatting, whatever. We do know that they use de-dupe and this is primarily how I suppose they recoup the space and claim 1:1. I have checked on the management page and our units are claiming a de-dupe ratio of 1.3. According to "My Computer" I have 2.23TB used currently. Now, here is where the slight of hand comes in - I have (I hope... I didn't actually keep careful track) actually put 2.23TB of data on the thing. AH HAH! Witchcraft this is not! It's just not displaying the space it gained by compacting all your data.
So, best guess: overhead penalty of duping data to maintain redundancy is recouped through compression of original data, and probably some other OBS trickery. I'm not at all sure what that trickery is exactly, though I suspect they can somehow reconstitute blocks of data??? I'm not at all satisfied with my answer but I hope to learn more.
Further suppositions: I strongly suspect that there is a fair bit of overhead from all the work the OBS has to do. How much of a penalty this is I would really like to find out, but I lack the equipment (gigabit networking) to really put the hurt on them for I/O. Given my company's use case for these units, we would likely never push their I/O limitations anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I am really interested to see this running production virtualization workloads via NFS.
I'd like to see that too! We are setup as SMB though
-
Does it support SMB 3.o and, therefore, able to back HyperV?
-
@scottalanmiller No clue, but I remember something about that being a potential future feature. I checked the control panel for them and it simply stated "SMB" no version number or anything.
-
So the follow up to my rant below - I need a way to generate 14TB of uncompressable data and see what happens.
-
@MattSpeller uncompressable data is pretty tough. Video and audio files would be the easiest thing.
-
@scottalanmiller Easily found around here, I may give that a shot. Don't think I can muster up 14TB of unique video though.
Any idea if I'm on the right track with the rant below? It annoys me more than I'd like to admit that I don't understand how they are doing it.
-
I've got nearly 14TB of video already on hard drive!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've got nearly 14TB of video already on hard drive!
You are almost a self funded alternative to YouTube
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I am really interested to see this running production virtualization workloads via NFS.
We're getting there. Currently, our software is optimized for streaming read/write workloads and not IOPS. As you'd expect with the introduction of NFS support, improvement in IOPS is right around the corner.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Does it support SMB 3.o and, therefore, able to back HyperV?
we do support SMB 3.0. Today, you will not see great performance in virtual IOPS driven workloads as we've focused more on file serving and backup targets.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Ignorance ahoy! I really didn't understand at all how these things work and the following will probably illuminate that, hopefully I'll learn more!
My primary concern (curiosity? frustration?) is how the bleeping heck do they claim 100% space utilization. So this means you toss in a 1TB drive, it appears with 1TB more free space for you to use. This is basically anathema to me when they claim to have your data backed up and safe - to the point where you can just yank a drive out and it'll continue on it's merry way. As we all know, with RAID to get your data backed up it's usually a 50% space penalty (RAID1 / 10). Knowing that the answer probably isn't "witchcraft" I set about trying to figure it all out. The following is my super high level guess and assumptions and I'm probably wrong about half of it.
Object Based Storage is the heart of the answer, I'm pretty sure. My one sentence understand of it is: cut data into chunks, number the chunks, hash them?, store them across a couple (3?) drives. It appears that this is very similar to RAID in that the data is duped; where I know I'm missing something key is that you don't get 1:1 utilization if you're duping data anywhere. Impossible right? Yes. My best guess is that they do take a penalty from duping data, but they MUST recoup it somewhere!
Taking the units I have as the working example: put in 4x4TB drives, got 14.4TB usable storage out. That's not unreasonable to lose some capacity to file system, formatting, whatever. We do know that they use de-dupe and this is primarily how I suppose they recoup the space and claim 1:1. I have checked on the management page and our units are claiming a de-dupe ratio of 1.3. According to "My Computer" I have 2.23TB used currently. Now, here is where the slight of hand comes in - I have (I hope... I didn't actually keep careful track) actually put 2.23TB of data on the thing. AH HAH! Witchcraft this is not! It's just not displaying the space it gained by compacting all your data.
So, best guess: overhead penalty of duping data to maintain redundancy is recouped through compression of original data, and probably some other OBS trickery. I'm not at all sure what that trickery is exactly, though I suspect they can somehow reconstitute blocks of data??? I'm not at all satisfied with my answer but I hope to learn more.
Further suppositions: I strongly suspect that there is a fair bit of overhead from all the work the OBS has to do. How much of a penalty this is I would really like to find out, but I lack the equipment (gigabit networking) to really put the hurt on them for I/O. Given my company's use case for these units, we would likely never push their I/O limitations anyway.
You're thinking is along the right lines. Because we're object based we can do things legacy RAID systems can't. Regarding the capacity question, When you look in OneSystem and see Free and Used capacity that is what's being used within the OneBlox Ring. For your example, when you have 14.4 TB free capacity and you write 1TB of 100% unique data to the Ring, you'll see the used capacity increase to 3 TB. This is because we create three copies of every object to protect against 2 drive failures. As you pointed out, we break every file into chunks and then do inline dedupe, calculate a hash (which is now an object) and write that to three different disks.
You can test this by taking the same group of files, creating multiple folders in your directory and copying the same files over and over. You'll see the used capacity barely increase. You'll also see some great dedupe ratios in OneSystem. Remember to create test shares, and turn OFF snapshots for this. If you don't we're going to protect all your deleted data with our Continuous Data Protection
The other thing to think about is because we're object-based you can add 1 x 4TB drive and your total capacity will increase. We distribute each object across all of the drives so you don't need to worry about adding drives in qty 4, 6, or 8 (as long as you have at least three your good).
-
@MattSpeller said:
So the follow up to my rant below - I need a way to generate 14TB of uncompressable data and see what happens.
You can use FIO to generate multiple 1GB unique files if you'd like and stream them to the OneBlox Ring. This is what we do internally to test and fill up our file system to 100% utilization in our QA process.
-
Seems like the errors from last week have gotten strange. I've only been loading data to the "victoria' unit, however the "vanouver" one is showing greater storage used, along with a really sweet amount of dedupe
-
Have not yet contacted support as I suspect this may be related to the really crappy networking I gave it. I will let it sit and stew for another day as I have no time to poke it today.
-
Connected the delinquent "vancouver" one back up to clean 100mbit lan, will see if anything changes.
-
Note: all errors mentioned below still exist on the "vancouver" unit as I post this, including wacky dedupe ratio, 100GB greater capacity in use and file system inconsistency error
-
Time to get support to take a gander, I would say.
-
@scottalanmiller I'll give it 24h to sort it's self out - if it was the hub, that'll give it time to heal. I really don't expect anyone's tested it with such poor networking gear and while I didn't expect it to cause issues, it's outside of what I'd expect them to support.
-
@MattSpeller No, that is exactly what you are paying for. make use of it. By not contacting support you are wasting time and money.
