On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected] > 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? 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Forgot to attach profile info in previous email. Attached... >> >> David >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "David F. Robinson" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> 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" <[email protected]> >> To: "David Robinson" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Young Thomas" <[email protected]> >> Sent: 8/5/2014 2:25:38 AM >> Subject: Re: Corvid gluster testing >> >> [email protected] 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 <704.799.6944%20x101> [office] >> 704.252.1310 [cell] >> 704.799.7974 [fax] >> [email protected] >> http://www.corvidtechnologies.com >> >> >> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]> >> 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 <704.799.6944%20x101> [office] >> 704.252.1310 [cell] >> 704.799.7974 [fax] >> [email protected] >> http://www.corvidtechnologies.com >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing > [email protected]http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
