On 01/02/2016 10:11 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
On Jan 2, 2016 8:18 PM, "Atin Mukherjee" <atin.mukherje...@gmail.com
<mailto:atin.mukherje...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> -Atin
> Sent from one plus one
> On Jan 2, 2016 4:41 PM, "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com
<mailto:rta...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Atin Mukherjee
<atin.mukherje...@gmail.com <mailto:atin.mukherje...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> -Atin
> >> Sent from one plus one
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 2, 2016 11:52 AM, "Vijay Bellur" <vbel...@redhat.com
<mailto:vbel...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 12/30/2015 10:36 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This is not comprehensive data but some interesting bits
> >> >>
> >> >> Average time taken for various commands in our .t files.
> >> >>
> >> >> * glusterd - 2 second
> >> >> * gluster vol start/stop - 3 second
> >> >> * gluster vol set/info(any basic gluster cli command) -1 second
> >> >> * gluster mount - 2 second
> >> >> * gluster add brick - 2 second
> >> >> * gluster remove brick - 5 second
> >> >> * gluster rebalance start 5 second
> >> >> * gluster tier attach/detach - 6 second
> >> >>
> >> >> The only other single command which takes 1+ second is sleep.
Most of
> >> >> the other
> >> >> external commands we use in bash scripts are not that time taking.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hence,
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Don't stop/delete a gluster volume in .t file unless it is
part of
> >> >> your test. Let the cleanup function handle that.
> >> >> 2. Don't call gluster vol info at the start of the test if not
required
> >> >> 3. Merge as many tests as possible to reduce glusterd
starts/vol starts
> >> >> and mounts.
> >> >> 4. Use sleep only if it is absolutely required.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can use this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294826
> >> >> to send patches to improve test times.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thank you! These are good set of steps that can help in
reducing the overall time consumed for a regression test run. I also
think the larger latencies observed in volume operations could be
related to the the set of fsync()s involved in making configuration
state durable in glusterd's store. It would be interesting to see if
we can use a ramdisk for /var/lib/glusterd and check if the latencies
would improve.
> >> That's a good suggestion. It'd definitely improve the latency.
> >
> >
> > Tried this.
> > I saw improvement of 1 second with commands which took over 4
second. May be there is something else which is taking more time?
> Did you observe this for clustered tests? I think apart from fsync()
and n/w latency the rest of the things should be pretty light wight
and shouldn't consume much time.
This data is true for non clustered tests too. I am suspecting address
resolution.
Rafi had suggested we use IP addresses instead of host names for HOST
variables
I have seen latency because of address resolution as well.
Pranith
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Vijay
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> >> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org>
> >> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
