On 08/07/2014 07:18 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
It would be worth checking the perf numbers without -o acl (in case it
was enabled, as seen in the other gid thread). Client side -o acl
mount option can have a negative impact on performance because of the
increased number of up-calls from FUSE for access().
Actually it is all write intensive.
here are the numbers they gave me from earlier runs:
%-latency Avg-latency Min-Latency Max-Latency No. of
calls Fop
--------- ----------- ----------- -----------
------------ ----
0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 99 FORGET
0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 1093 RELEASE
0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 468
RELEASEDIR
0.00 60.00 us 26.00 us 107.00 us 4 SETATTR
0.00 91.56 us 42.00 us 157.00 us 27 UNLINK
0.00 20.75 us 12.00 us 55.00 us 132 GETXATTR
0.00 19.03 us 9.00 us 95.00 us 152 READLINK
0.00 43.19 us 12.00 us 106.00 us 83 OPEN
0.00 18.37 us 8.00 us 92.00 us 257 STATFS
0.00 32.42 us 11.00 us 118.00 us 322 OPENDIR
0.00 36.09 us 5.00 us 109.00 us 359 FSTAT
0.00 51.14 us 37.00 us 183.00 us 663 RENAME
0.00 33.32 us 6.00 us 123.00 us 1451 STAT
0.00 821.79 us 21.00 us 22678.00 us 84 READ
0.00 34.88 us 3.00 us 139.00 us 2326 FLUSH
0.01 789.33 us 72.00 us 64054.00 us 347 CREATE
0.01 1144.63 us 43.00 us 280735.00 us 337 FTRUNCATE
0.01 47.82 us 16.00 us 19817.00 us 16513 LOOKUP
0.02 604.85 us 11.00 us 1233.00 us 1423 READDIRP
99.95 17.51 us 6.00 us 212701.00 us 300715967 WRITE
Duration: 5390 seconds
Data Read: 1495257497 bytes
Data Written: 166546887668 bytes
Pranith
Thanks
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkara...@redhat.com <mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 08/07/2014 06:48 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkara...@redhat.com <mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>> wrote:
We checked this performance with plain distribute as well and
on nfs it gave 25 minutes where as on nfs it gave around 90
minutes after disabling throttling in both situations.
This sentence is very confusing. Can you please state it more
clearly?
sorry :-D.
We checked this performance on plain distribute volume by
disabling throttling.
On nfs the run took 25 minutes.
On fuse the run took 90 minutes.
Pranith
Thanks
I was wondering if any of you guys know what could contribute
to this difference.
Pranith
On 08/07/2014 01:33 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
Seems like heavy FINODELK contention. As a diagnostic step,
can you try disabling eager-locking and check the write
performance again (gluster volume set $name
cluster.eager-lock off)?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David F. Robinson
<david.robin...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:david.robin...@corvidtec.com>> wrote:
Forgot to attach profile info in previous email.
Attached...
David
------ Original Message ------
From: "David F. Robinson" <david.robin...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:david.robin...@corvidtec.com>>
To: gluster-devel@gluster.org
<mailto:gluster-devel@gluster.org>
Sent: 8/5/2014 2:41:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Corvid gluster testing
I have been testing some of the fixes that
Pranith incorporated into the 3.5.2-beta to see how
they performed for moderate levels of i/o. All of the
stability issues that I had seen in previous versions
seem to have been fixed in 3.5.2; however, there still
seem to be some significant performance issues.
Pranith suggested that I send this to the gluster-devel
email list, so here goes:
I am running an MPI job that saves a restart file to
the gluster file system. When I use the following in
my fstab to mount the gluster volume, the i/o time for
the 2.5GB file is roughly 45-seconds.
/ gfsib01a.corvidtec.com:/homegfs /homegfs glusterfs
transport=tcp,_netdev 0 0
/
When I switch this to use the NFS protocol (see below),
the i/o time is 2.5-seconds.
/gfsib01a.corvidtec.com:/homegfs /homegfs nfs
vers=3,intr,bg,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 0 0/
The read-times for gluster are 10-20% faster than NFS,
but the write times are almost 20x slower.
I am running SL 6.4 and
glusterfs-3.5.2-0.1.beta1.el6.x86_64...
/[root@gfs01a glusterfs]# gluster volume info homegfs
Volume Name: homegfs
Type: Distributed-Replicate
Volume ID: 1e32672a-f1b7-4b58-ba94-58c085e59071
Status: Started
Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4
Transport-type: tcp
Bricks:
Brick1: gfsib01a.corvidtec.com:/data/brick01a/homegfs
Brick2: gfsib01b.corvidtec.com:/data/brick01b/homegfs
Brick3: gfsib01a.corvidtec.com:/data/brick02a/homegfs
Brick4: gfsib01b.corvidtec.com:/data/brick02b/homegfs/
David
------ Forwarded Message ------
From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkara...@redhat.com
<mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>>
To: "David Robinson" <david.robin...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:david.robin...@corvidtec.com>>
Cc: "Young Thomas" <tom.yo...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:tom.yo...@corvidtec.com>>
Sent: 8/5/2014 2:25:38 AM
Subject: Re: Corvid gluster testing
gluster-devel@gluster.org
<mailto:gluster-devel@gluster.org> is the email-id for
the mailing list. We should probably start with the
initial run numbers and the comparison for glusterfs
mount and nfs mounts. May be something like
glusterfs mount: 90 minutes
nfs mount: 25 minutes
And profile outputs, volume config, number of mounts,
hardware configuration should be a good start.
Pranith
On 08/05/2014 09:28 AM, David Robinson wrote:
Thanks pranith
===============================
David F. Robinson, Ph.D.
President - Corvid Technologies
704.799.6944 x101 <tel:704.799.6944%20x101> [office]
704.252.1310 <tel:704.252.1310> [cell]
704.799.7974 <tel:704.799.7974> [fax]
david.robin...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:david.robin...@corvidtec.com>
http://www.corvidtechnologies.com
<http://www.corvidtechnologies.com/>
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkara...@redhat.com <mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>>
wrote:
On 08/05/2014 08:33 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 08/05/2014 08:29 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
On 08/05/2014 12:51 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
No. I don't want to use nfs. It eliminates most
of the benefits of why I want to use gluster.
Failover redundancy of the pair, load balancing,
etc.
What is the meaning of 'Failover redundancy of the
pair, load balancing ' Could you elaborate more?
smb/nfs/glusterfs are just access protocols that
gluster supports functionality is almost same
Here is my understanding. Please correct me where I
am wrong.
With gluster, if I am doing a write and one of the
replicated pairs goes down, there is no
interruption to the I/o. The failover is handled by
gluster and the fuse client. This isn't done if I
use an nfs mount unless the component of the pair
that goes down isn't the one I used for the mount.
With nfs, I will have to mount one of the bricks.
So, if I have gfs01a, gfs01b, gfs02a, gfs02b,
gfs03a, gfs03b, etc and my fstab mounts gfs01a, it
is my understanding that all of my I/o will go
through gfs01a which then gets distributed to all
of the other bricks. Gfs01a throughput becomes a
bottleneck. Where if I do a gluster mount using
fuse, the load balancing is handled at the client
side , not the server side. If I have 1000-nodes
accessing 20-gluster bricks, I need the load
balancing aspect. I cannot have all traffic going
through the network interface on a single brick.
If I am wrong with the above assumptions, I guess
my question is why would one ever use the gluster
mount instead of nfs and/or samba?
Tom: feel free to chime in if I have missed anything.
I see your point now. Yes the gluster server where
you did the mount is kind of a bottle neck.
Now that we established the problem is in the
clients/protocols, you should send out a detailed
mail on gluster-devel and see if anyone can help with
you on performance xlators that can improve it a bit
more. My area of expertise is more on replication. I
am sub-maintainer for replication,locks components. I
also know connection management/io-threads related
issues which lead to hangs as I worked on them
before. Performance xlators are black box to me.
Performance xlators are enabled only on fuse gluster
stack. On nfs server mounts we disable all the
performance xlators except write-behind as nfs client
does lots of things for improving performance. I
suggest you guys follow up more on gluster-devel.
Appreciate all the help you did for improving the
product :-). Thanks a ton!
Pranith
Pranith
David (Sent from mobile)
===============================
David F. Robinson, Ph.D.
President - Corvid Technologies
704.799.6944 x101 <tel:704.799.6944%20x101> [office]
704.252.1310 <tel:704.252.1310> [cell]
704.799.7974 <tel:704.799.7974> [fax]
david.robin...@corvidtec.com
<mailto:david.robin...@corvidtec.com>
http://www.corvidtechnologies.com
<http://www.corvidtechnologies.com/>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org>
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org>
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
