I did supply more context than you mention- it was a tar file of X MB w/
Y files, and compares to disk w/ cache or w/o cache by Z seconds. This
should give some idea of the task I was attempting and even a basis for
replication of the test.
Jeremy
On 3/23/2010 12:37 PM, Ian Rogers wrote:
It's not very helpful to say gluster is "x4" slower though as it all
depends on overhead and context.
In our setup we've found PHP pages (with lots of includes) load around
100ms slower - which ranges from x2 down to just 10% slower depending
on what else is going on...
It'd be interesting to know what the fuse overhead is. If gluster had
some resource available it would be really cool to see how the
overhead reduced if gluster was a kernel module rather than userspace
fuse....
As always YMMV.
Ian
On 23/03/2010 11:02, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:59:35 -0600 (CST)
"Tejas N. Bhise"<[email protected]> wrote:
Out of curiosity, if you want to do stuff only on one machine,
why do you want to use a distributed, multi node, clustered,
file system ?
Because what he does is a very good way to show the overhead produced
only by
glusterfs and nothing else (i.e. no network involved).
A pretty relevant test scenario I would say.
--
Regards,
Stephan
Am I missing something here ?
Regards,
Tejas.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Enos"<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:07:06 PM GMT +05:30 Chennai,
Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi
Subject: [Gluster-users] gluster local vs local = gluster x4 slower
This test is pretty easy to replicate anywhere- only takes 1 disk, one
machine, one tarball. Untarring to local disk directly vs thru gluster
is about 4.5x faster. At first I thought this may be due to a slow
host
(Opteron 2.4ghz). But it's not- same configuration, on a much faster
machine (dual 3.33ghz Xeon) yields the performance below.
####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK THRU GLUSTER####
[r...@ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf
/scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
real 0m41.290s
user 0m14.246s
sys 0m2.957s
####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK (BYPASS GLUSTER)####
[r...@ac33 jenos]# cd /export/jenos/
[r...@ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf
/scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
real 0m8.983s
user 0m6.857s
sys 0m1.844s
####THESE ARE TEST FILE DETAILS####
[r...@ac33 jenos]# tar tzvf
/scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz |wc -l
109
[r...@ac33 jenos]# ls -l
/scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 jenos ac 804385203 2010-02-07 06:32
/scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
[r...@ac33 jenos]#
These are the relevant performance options I'm using in my .vol file:
#------------Performance Options-------------------
volume readahead
type performance/read-ahead
option page-count 4 # 2 is default option
option force-atime-update off # default is off
subvolumes ghome
end-volume
volume writebehind
type performance/write-behind
option cache-size 1MB
subvolumes readahead
end-volume
volume cache
type performance/io-cache
option cache-size 1GB
subvolumes writebehind
end-volume
What can I do to improve gluster's performance?
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
