Hi,i've attached log file. It's a logfile of node where there was client+brick configuration. Others were just bricks.
regards Raghavendra G wrote:
Hi Marko,Thanks for the document. Do you have glusterfs log files taken while performing these benchmarks?regards,On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Marko <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:Hi, this document is made for my personal reference so it's a little raw. regards Raghavendra G wrote:Hi Marko, The option disable-for-first-nbytes disables write behind for the first n bytes written, where n is the value of the option. Also, Can you please send the benmark results for the tests you carried out? regards, On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Marko <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, To clearify: * im testing with gluisterfs-2.0.0rc7 * all bricks are on same physical server(Xen guests). It's a testing environment. These are a few benchmarks I've done so far: * time make-many-files #(this is slightly modified version that I've found here:http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/make-many-files.c) * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=8 count=128000 of=file1MB.bin #(effectively creates lots of small consecutive fops) * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=25000 of=file100MB.bin #(creates optimal transactions from HDDs physical point of view. I have best results here with all configurations) * time cp -a 0 1 2 /tmp #(/tmp is mounted as tmpfs; 0 1 2 are directories created by "make-many-files" ) * time rm 0 1 2 -fr I wish GlusterFS team provided simmilar set of tests so one can measure his performance in a way that can be compared to results from others. I think it would be a great value to all GlusterFS users and developers. I think that to create basic set of these tests is a trivial task( maybe just use mine :D ). Below I attached my configuration. Without write-back translator I get better results in most of the tests. I can't understand why write-back has such a bad impact on performance(being a performance *booster*). I've also noticed that TCP packets are much lower than MTU in first benchmark. Meaning write-back doesn't optimize writes. Can you explain that? Can someone help me to get high performance with AFR? Regards, Marko #------------- configuration --------------------- ########## server ########################### volume posix-brick type storage/posix option directory /srv/gluster end-volume volume lock-brick type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix-brick option mandatory-locks on end-volume volume server type protocol/server option transport-type tcp/server subvolumes lock-brick option auth.addr.lock-brick.allow * end-volume ########## client ########################### volume brick1 type protocol/client option transport-type tcp option remote-host gluster-host1 option remote-subvolume lock-brick end-volume volume brick2 type protocol/client option transport-type tcp option remote-host gluster-host2 option remote-subvolume lock-brick end-volume volume AFR type cluster/replicate subvolumes brick1 brick2 end-volume volume wb type performance/write-behind subvolumes AFR option flush-behind on option window-size 1MB option aggregate-size 512KB end-volume _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users-- Raghavendra G-- Raghavendra G
glusterfsd.log.bz2
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
