[Systems] Wiki speed
bernie at codewiz.org
Fri Jun 26 13:56:52 EDT 2015
On 26/06/15 09:14, Samuel Cantero wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Sam P. <sam.parkinson3 at gmail.com
> <mailto:sam.parkinson3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
> Thanks for doing the research about resource limits in docker by the
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM Samuel Cantero <scg at sugarlabs.org
> <mailto:scg at sugarlabs.org>> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Bernie Innocenti
> <bernie at codewiz.org <mailto:bernie at codewiz.org>> wrote:
> On 24/06/15 04:02, Sam P. wrote:
> Hi All,
> I just saw that the docker container on freedom that
> does the
> magical-wiki-visual-editor-node-js-service was not
> running, so that was
> why only the edit source thing was working :)
> IDK what happened there - did somebody restart docker on
> freedom? or
> restart freedom? all of the containers were down :(
> So about the visual editor, here were my tests on
> wiki-devel (running
> "time curl
> /dev/null" on sunjammer):
> * ~2sec average time with visual editor and all the others
> * ~1.5sec without visual editor => probs a bit of
> network cost, but not
> the whole thing
> * ~1.7sec without mobile front end (but with VE and all
> the others)
> * ~2sec without the media viewer lightbox (but with VE
> and all the others)
> Don't trust my test results, but it would probably help
> a little to
> move VE together with the rest of the wiki.
> It would be pretty cool to containerize or chuck the
> wiki in a new VM.
> That would make it eaiser to move the VE thing onto the
> same machine.
> Moving it onto a newer OS could also let us play with
> HHVM, which seems
> to work nicely with media wiki .
> LGTM. Can you and the other Sam (scg) work together on this?
> Of course. I couldn't get in contact with Sam yet but I have
> been working on this and I have some interesting things to tell you.
> I think the current docker setup is still too sketchy to run
> on justice alongside other production VMs. We need to ensure
> that each container has hard limits on all resources: cpu,
> memory, disk space and possibly even I/O bandwidth.
> Sure. I want to tell you about my research. I was reading about
> docker runtime constraints on resources. By default, the memory
> and swap accounting is disable on ubuntu 14.04. We need to
> enable it on GRUB setting the following line:
> GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="cgroup_enable=memory swapaccount=1"
> Then we have to update the grub (sudo update-grub) and pitifully
> reboot the system. I have checked it on freedom and it is not
> Wait. Why do we need to enable this if we have the memory control
> working as you tested?
> I have done the tests on a VM running on my laptop. :)
> Currently, we can limit the memory for a container in docker.
> However, by default, the container can use all of the memory on
> the host (as much memory as needed). Another interesting fact:
> the swap memory will be _unlimited_ too.
> We have to change this in our actual configuration because
> having no limit on memory can lead to issues where one container
> can easily make the whole system unstable and as a result unusable.
> To check how this works in Docker, I used the /stress/ tool
> (inside a container) that helped me out to generate some load in
> the containers so I could actually check for the resource limits
> being applied. The results are:
> We can limit the amount of memory for a docker container
> (tested). By default, the amount of the swap memory will be the
> same. We can set different values for the swap memory but we can
> not disable it entirely.
> A container with a memory limit of 256 MB will die If we stress
> out the container with the twice of the assigned memory. The
> container uses all of the memory and all of the swap and then die.
> Sounds great!
> When I run the stress tool (inside the container) with 2 workers
> to impose load on to the CPU, I can see that each process
> consume 50% of CPU. Yes, by default, a container can use a 100%
> of the CPU. And If we have many cores, it can use all the cores
> Docker lets you specify a CPU share, but this is not so useful
> to actually limit the physical cores (I guess). The CPU share is
> just a proportion of CPU cycles. This is a relative weight
> (between containers) and has nothing to do with the actual
> processor speed. Besides, the proportion will only apply when
> CPU-intensive processes are running. When tasks in one container
> are idle, other containers can use the left-over CPU time. As
> you might guess, on an idle host, a container with low shares
> will still be able to use 100% of the CPU. On a multi-core
> system, the shares of CPU time are distributed over all CPU
> cores. Even if a container is limited to less than 100% of CPU
> time, it can use 100% of each individual CPU core.
> As you can see, there is no way to say that a container should
> have access only to 1 GHz of the CPU. Therefore, what can we do
> 1- Limit the container's CPU usage in percentage. For example,
> we can limit the container to 50% of a CPU resource using CPU
> quota in docker.
> When I ran the stress tool (inside the container) with 2 workers
> to impose load on to the CPU, I saw that each process consumed
> around 25% of CPU (values: 25.2 and 24.9, 25.2 and 25.2, 25.6 y
> 24.9 and so on). However, I have to test it in a multi-core VM
> and perform other testing.
> This is just a first test. I want to continue reading about CPU
> quota and CPU period constraints in Docker.
> 2- Pin a container to a specific core, i.e, set cpu or cpus in
> which to allow execution for containers.
> Yeah, that is probably an issue with docker. Infact there seem to
> be 2 main issues with docker on SL infra now:
> 1. cpu limits
> 2. docker kills containers when you restart the daemon (aka.
> installing a docker update kills containers). That's probably why
> all the containers got stopped a while back. The 'solution' to that
> seems to be clustering - but that ain't gonna work for us.
> So, lets look at alternatives to docker. The 2 that stand out are
> rkt (core os) and runc.io <http://runc.io> (reference Open Container
> Project implementation). Both of them allow you to run docker
> images. Both run as a standalone program not a daemon; so you can
> use systemd for resource management (demo on runc.io <http://runc.io>).
> Freedom doesn't actually have systemd, but maybe upstart does
> something similar. I will look into it, but I that rkt or runc
> could be a useful replacement for docker to out needs.
> I like the approach of using systemd for resource management. Besides,
> on an operating system which uses systemd as the service manager process
> (not only the ones inside of the container) will be placed in a cgroups
> tree. BTW, systemd will replace upstart in Ubuntu 15.04.
If we need to upgrade to 15.04 for systemd, I'd go for it even if it's
not LTS. We have the ability to experiment on freedom while justice
keeps serving production traffic.
When (and *if*) we're satisfied with the stability of systemd containers
on 15.04, we'll upgrade justice to the same release. And anyway, as soon
as the next LTS comes out we'll upgrade both machines to it, in the same
staggered fashion which minimizes surprises.
However, systemd-nspawn is relatively new and I haven't heard of any
large deployment using it. It may very well be that it's not yet ready
for production. So don't count too much on it.
> I will look for rtk and runc.io <http://runc.io>.
Thanks. Speaking of container management, have you guys tried Kubernetes?
Looks a bit too big for our infrastructure, but it also looks pretty
well designed and implemented...
_ // Bernie Innocenti
More information about the Systems