Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

qcow2 files for OCP node storage leads to poor CPU performance #217

Open
vmorris opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

qcow2 files for OCP node storage leads to poor CPU performance #217

vmorris opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@vmorris
Copy link
Member

vmorris commented Oct 18, 2023

We've observed very high iowait time being consumed by OCP cluster nodes when they are performing high amount of disk IO.

Please update the automation to give the option to use raw block (SCSI LUN or DASD) devices and pass these through to the OCP guest nodes.

@AmadeusPodvratnik AmadeusPodvratnik added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 19, 2023
@AmadeusPodvratnik
Copy link
Collaborator

AmadeusPodvratnik commented Oct 19, 2023

More information about implementation can be found here:
https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248463.pdf
Chapter 3.6

RH Bug: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ITIBM-215

Info:
https://www.cnblogs.com/popsuper1982/p/3845437.html

@vmorris
Copy link
Member Author

vmorris commented Oct 19, 2023

Another team uses the unsupported IPI method to deploy their clusters, and are using qcow2. I wonder if applying the pattern in this tuning playbook would be sufficient to avoid the iowait issue, and continue to use qcow2?

https://github.com/ibm-s390-cloud/ocp-kvm-ipi-automation/blob/main/ansible/roles/tuning/tasks/libvirt_optimize_disks.yml

@vmorris
Copy link
Member Author

vmorris commented Oct 19, 2023

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants