On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Ralf Schenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > Gluster-Performance is bad. Thats why I asked for native qemu-libgfapi > access for Ovirt-VM's to gluster volumes which I thought to be possible > since 3.6.x. Documentation is misleading and still in 4.1.2 Ovirt is using > fuse to mount gluster-based VM-Disks. > Can you please open a bug to fix documentation? We are working on libgfapi, but it's indeed not in yet. Y. > Bye > > Am 19.06.2017 um 17:23 schrieb Darrell Budic: > > Chris- > > You probably need to head over to [email protected] for help with > performance issues. > > That said, what kind of performance are you getting, via some form or > testing like bonnie++ or even dd runs? Raw bricks vs gluster performance is > useful to determine what kind of performance you’re actually getting. > > Beyond that, I’d recommend dropping the arbiter bricks and re-adding them > as full replicas, they can’t serve distributed data in this configuration > and may be slowing things down on you. If you’ve got a storage network > setup, make sure it’s using the largest MTU it can, and consider > adding/testing these settings that I use on my main storage volume: > > performance.io-thread-count: 32 > client.event-threads: 8 > server.event-threads: 3 > performance.stat-prefetch: on > > Good luck, > > -Darrell > > > On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Chris Boot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I have 3x servers in a "hyper-converged" oVirt 4.1.2 + GlusterFS 3.10 > configuration. My VMs run off a replica 3 arbiter 1 volume comprised of > 6 bricks, which themselves live on two SSDs in each of the servers (one > brick per SSD). The bricks are XFS on LVM thin volumes straight onto the > SSDs. Connectivity is 10G Ethernet. > > Performance within the VMs is pretty terrible. I experience very low > throughput and random IO is really bad: it feels like a latency issue. > On my oVirt nodes the SSDs are not generally very busy. The 10G network > seems to run without errors (iperf3 gives bandwidth measurements of >= > 9.20 Gbits/sec between the three servers). > > To put this into perspective: I was getting better behaviour from NFS4 > on a gigabit connection than I am with GlusterFS on 10G: that doesn't > feel right at all. > > My volume configuration looks like this: > > Volume Name: vmssd > Type: Distributed-Replicate > Volume ID: d5a5ddd1-a140-4e0d-b514-701cfe464853 > Status: Started > Snapshot Count: 0 > Number of Bricks: 2 x (2 + 1) = 6 > Transport-type: tcp > Bricks: > Brick1: ovirt3:/gluster/ssd0_vmssd/brick > Brick2: ovirt1:/gluster/ssd0_vmssd/brick > Brick3: ovirt2:/gluster/ssd0_vmssd/brick (arbiter) > Brick4: ovirt3:/gluster/ssd1_vmssd/brick > Brick5: ovirt1:/gluster/ssd1_vmssd/brick > Brick6: ovirt2:/gluster/ssd1_vmssd/brick (arbiter) > Options Reconfigured: > nfs.disable: on > transport.address-family: inet6 > performance.quick-read: off > performance.read-ahead: off > performance.io-cache: off > performance.stat-prefetch: off > performance.low-prio-threads: 32 > network.remote-dio: off > cluster.eager-lock: enable > cluster.quorum-type: auto > cluster.server-quorum-type: server > cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full > cluster.locking-scheme: granular > cluster.shd-max-threads: 8 > cluster.shd-wait-qlength: 10000 > features.shard: on > user.cifs: off > storage.owner-uid: 36 > storage.owner-gid: 36 > features.shard-block-size: 128MB > performance.strict-o-direct: on > network.ping-timeout: 30 > cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable > > I would really appreciate some guidance on this to try to improve things > because at this rate I will need to reconsider using GlusterFS altogether. > > Cheers, > Chris > > -- > Chris Boot > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing [email protected]http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > -- > > > *Ralf Schenk* > fon +49 (0) 24 05 / 40 83 70 <+49%202405%20408370> > fax +49 (0) 24 05 / 40 83 759 <+49%202405%204083759> > mail *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > *Databay AG* > Jens-Otto-Krag-Straße 11 > D-52146 Würselen > *www.databay.de* <http://www.databay.de> > > Sitz/Amtsgericht Aachen • HRB:8437 • USt-IdNr.: DE 210844202 > Vorstand: Ralf Schenk, Dipl.-Ing. Jens Conze, Aresch Yavari, Dipl.-Kfm. > Philipp Hermanns > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Wilhelm Dohmen > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
