Thanks. Yes, I'll give it a shot in the future. Unfortunately, I don't have any spare systems to run experiments on. I might enable pNFS with the single MDS in the current RHS version though and do some initial tests.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Anand Subramanian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Prasun, > > pNFS was recently released in a "tech-preview" form. With multiple MDS-es > or even an all-symmetric arch (every ganesha node can act as both DS and > MDS, which will also be a supported config) you could potentially see > improvements (due to increased throughput) but, from our experiments so far > (and this is certainly work in progress) there is much improved perf for > large files and not so much for small file i/o (using distributed iozone > workloads). That said, we have not done a lot of work playing around with > the tuneables as yet (glusterfs side options and things like vm-background > ratio and vm-dirty ratio tuning on the OS side) for small file pNFS access, > so it is pending exercise at this point. We can confirm only when these > performance experiments are completed. But if you happen to have large > files as well, it should be a win. And the best part is, it comes at zero > extra cost to try it out. > > If you have the bandwidth, you should probably give pnfs a spin with the > latest glusterfs versions if you want very quick answers. It is quite easy > to setup and we could lend a helping hand there. And maybe you will > pleasantly surprise us ;-) :) > > Anand > > > > On 08/13/2015 12:18 PM, Prasun Gera wrote: > > Thanks. For small files and random I/O, nfs has been recommended over > fuse. Would pNFS, with multiple MDS'es in the future, be the recommended > approach for small files ? > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Soumya Koduri <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It depends on the workload. Like native NFS, even with NFS-Ganesha, data >> is routed through the server where its mounted from. In addition NFSv4.x >> protocol adds more complexity and cannot be directly compared with NFSv3 >> traffic. However with pNFS, I/O is routed to data servers directly by the >> NFS clients which results in performance gain for larger I/O workloads. >> Also we do have plan to support multiple metadata servers going forward. >> >> Thanks, >> Soumya >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Prasun Gera" <[email protected]> >> To: "Joe Julian" <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:55:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] ganesha BFS >> >> And do either of them perform better than fuse mounts ? With native nfs, >> all data is routed through the server where it's mounted from, which makes >> HA and load balancing difficult. For pNFS, there is a single metadata >> server. How does that affect HA and load ? I thought one of the main goals >> of gluster was decentralized metadata. Where do the four options (fuse, >> native nfs, nfsv4, pnfs ) stand in terms of benefits and disadvantages ? >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Julian < [email protected] > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> nfs-ganesha is a much more feature rich nfs server that uses libgfapi to >> access the gluster volume in userspace. This userspace solution avoids the >> context switches like the native gluster nfs does, but adds support for >> pnfs/nfsv4 and udp. >> >> From the development standpoint, they have a full set of developers >> working only on and focused only on their nfs server whereas the gluster >> version was implemented as a stop-gap to provide a solution where the >> kernel nfs re-share was failing. >> >> I think nfs-ganesha is a better solution. There is integration work being >> done in glusterfs to make its use seamless, so I suspect that's the >> long-term nfs solution that will eventually replace gluster's native nfs. >> >> >> On 08/12/2015 09:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello Dears, >> >> can anybody explain advanteges / disadvantages of Ganesha NFS ?? >> Will U reccomend me go through this way ?? >> ( 4 node glusterFS ) >> regs. >> Pavel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing > [email protected]http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
