Top posting as it is not exactly about in-consistency of perf layer.

On the performance translators of Gluster, I am more interested to get work
done on write-back caching layer, specially with using lease feature.
Mainly because there are way too many usecases where a given directory
would be used only by one client/application at the time.

Regards,
Amar


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Raghavendra G <raghaven...@gluster.com>
wrote:

> I've started marking "whiteboard" of bugs in this class with tag
> "GLUSTERFS_METADATA_INCONSISTENCY". Please add the tag to any bugs which
> you deem to fit in.
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowd...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkara...@redhat.com>
>> > To: "Raghavendra G" <raghaven...@gluster.com>
>> > Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
>> > Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 2:30:59 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Glusterfs and Structured data
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Raghavendra G <
>> raghaven...@gluster.com >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Vijay Bellur < vbel...@redhat.com >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <
>> rgowd...@redhat.com >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > One of our users pointed out to the documentation that glusterfs is not
>> good
>> > for storing "Structured data" [1], while discussing an issue [2].
>> >
>> >
>> > As far as I remember, the content around structured data in the Install
>> Guide
>> > is from a FAQ that was being circulated in Gluster, Inc. indicating the
>> > startup's market positioning. Most of that was based on not wanting to
>> get
>> > into performance based comparisons of storage systems that are
>> frequently
>> > seen in the structured data space.
>> >
>> >
>> > Does any of you have more context on the feasibility of storing
>> "structured
>> > data" on Glusterfs? Is one of the reasons for such a suggestion
>> "staleness
>> > of metadata" as encountered in bugs like [3]?
>> >
>> >
>> > There are challenges that distributed storage systems face when exposed
>> to
>> > applications that were written for a local filesystem interface. We have
>> > encountered problems with applications like tar [4] that are not in the
>> > realm of "Structured data". If we look at the common theme across all
>> these
>> > problems, it is related to metadata & read after write consistency
>> issues
>> > with the default translator stack that gets exposed on the client side.
>> > While the default stack is optimal for other scenarios, it does seem
>> that a
>> > category of applications needing strict metadata consistency is not well
>> > served by that. We have observed that disabling a few performance
>> > translators and tuning cache timeouts for VFS/FUSE have helped to
>> overcome
>> > some of them. The WIP effort on timestamp consistency across the
>> translator
>> > stack, patches that have been merged as a result of the bugs that you
>> > mention & other fixes for outstanding issues should certainly help in
>> > catering to these workloads better with the file interface.
>> >
>> > There are deployments that I have come across where glusterfs is used
>> for
>> > storing structured data. gluster-block & qemu-libgfapi overcome the
>> metadata
>> > consistency problem by exposing a file as a block device & by disabling
>> most
>> > of the performance translators in the default stack. Workloads that have
>> > been deemed problematic with the file interface for the reasons alluded
>> > above, function well with the block interface.
>> >
>> > I agree that gluster-block due to its usage of a subset of glusterfs
>> fops
>> > (mostly reads/writes I guess), runs into less number of consistency
>> issues.
>> > However, as you've mentioned we seem to disable perf xlator stack in our
>> > tests/use-cases till now. Note that perf xlator stack is one of worst
>> > offenders as far as the metadata consistency is concerned (relatively
>> less
>> > scenarios of data inconsistency). So, I wonder,
>> > * what would be the scenario if we enable perf xlator stack for
>> > gluster-block?
>> > * Is performance on gluster-block satisfactory so that we don't need
>> these
>> > xlators?
>> > - Or is it that these xlators are not useful for the workload usually
>> run on
>> > gluster-block (For random read/write workload, read/write caching
>> xlators
>> > offer less or no advantage)?
>> >
>> > Yes. They are not useful. Block/VM files are opened with O_DIRECT, so we
>> > don't enable caching at any layer in glusterfs. md-cache could be
>> useful for
>> > serving fstat from glusterfs. But apart from that I don't see any other
>> > xlator contributing much.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - Or theoretically the workload is ought to benefit from perf xlators,
>> but we
>> > don't see them in our results (there are open bugs to this effect)?
>> >
>> > I am asking these questions to ascertain priority on fixing perf
>> xlators for
>> > (meta)data inconsistencies. If we offer a different solution for these
>> > workloads, the need for fixing these issues will be less.
>> >
>> > My personal opinion is that both block and fs should work correctly.
>> i.e.
>> > caching xlators shouldn't lead to inconsistency issues.
>>
>> +1. That's my personal opinion too. We'll try to fix these issues.
>> However, we need to qualify the fixes. It would be helpful if community can
>> help here. We'll let community know when the fixes are in.
>>
>> > It would be better
>> > if we are in a position where we choose a workload on block vs fs based
>> on
>> > their performance for that workload and nothing else. Block/VM usecases
>> > change the workload of the application for glusterfs, so for small file
>> > operations the kind of performance you see on block can never be
>> achieved by
>> > glusterfs with the current architecture/design.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I feel that we have come a long way from the time the install guide was
>> > written and an update for removing the "staleness of content" might be
>> in
>> > order there :-).
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Vijay
>> >
>> > [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058526
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] http://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Install-Guide/Overview/
>> > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1512691
>> > [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390050
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > Raghavendra
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Raghavendra G
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pranith
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Raghavendra G
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>



-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Reply via email to