Hello, While there are probably other interesting parameters and options in gluster itself, for us the largest difference with this speedtest and also for our website (real world performance) was the negative-timeout value during mount. Only 1 seems to solve so many problems, is there anyone knowledgeable why this is the case?
This would better be default I suppose ... I'm still wondering if there is a big underlying issue in gluster causing the difference to be so gigantic. Regards Jo -----Original message----- From:Jo Goossens <[email protected]> Sent:Tue 11-07-2017 18:48 Subject:RE: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs CC:[email protected]; To:Vijay Bellur <[email protected]>; PS: I just tested between these 2: mount -t glusterfs -o negative-timeout=1,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www mount -t glusterfs -o use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www So it means only 1 second negative timeout... In this particular test: ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 50000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 The result is about 4 seconds with the negative timeout of 1 second defined and many many minutes without the negative timeout (I quit after 15 minutes of waiting) I will go over to some real world tests now to see how it performs there. Regards Jo -----Original message----- From:Jo Goossens <[email protected]> Sent:Tue 11-07-2017 18:23 Subject:Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs To:Vijay Bellur <[email protected]>; CC:[email protected]; Hello Vijay, What do you mean exactly? What info is missing? PS: I already found out that for this particular test all the difference is made by : negative-timeout=600 , when removing it, it's much much slower again. Regards Jo -----Original message----- From:Vijay Bellur <[email protected]> Sent:Tue 11-07-2017 18:16 Subject:Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs To:Jo Goossens <[email protected]>; CC:[email protected]; Joe Julian <[email protected]>; On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jo Goossens <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hello Joe, I just did a mount like this (added the bold): mount -t glusterfs -o attribute-timeout=600,entry-timeout=600,negative-timeout=600,fopen-keep-cache,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www Results: root@app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] operation : cleanup files/thread : 5000 threads : 8 record size (KB, 0 = maximum) : 64 file size (KB) : 64 file size distribution : fixed files per dir : 100 dirs per dir : 10 threads share directories? : N filename prefix : filename suffix : hash file number into dir.? : N fsync after modify? : N pause between files (microsec) : 0 finish all requests? : Y stonewall? : Y measure response times? : N verify read? : Y verbose? : False log to stderr? : False ext.attr.size : 0 ext.attr.count : 0 permute host directories? : N remote program directory : /root/smallfile-master network thread sync. dir. : /var/www/test/network_shared starting all threads by creating starting gate file /var/www/test/network_shared/starting_gate.tmp host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 00,elapsed = 1.232004,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 01,elapsed = 1.148738,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 02,elapsed = 1.130913,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 03,elapsed = 1.183088,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 04,elapsed = 1.220752,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 05,elapsed = 1.228039,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 06,elapsed = 1.216787,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 07,elapsed = 1.229036,files = 5000,records = 0,status = ok total threads = 8 total files = 40000 100.00% of requested files processed, minimum is 70.00 1.232004 sec elapsed time 32467.428972 files/sec root@app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 50000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] operation : cleanup files/thread : 50000 threads : 8 record size (KB, 0 = maximum) : 64 file size (KB) : 64 file size distribution : fixed files per dir : 100 dirs per dir : 10 threads share directories? : N filename prefix : filename suffix : hash file number into dir.? : N fsync after modify? : N pause between files (microsec) : 0 finish all requests? : Y stonewall? : Y measure response times? : N verify read? : Y verbose? : False log to stderr? : False ext.attr.size : 0 ext.attr.count : 0 permute host directories? : N remote program directory : /root/smallfile-master network thread sync. dir. : /var/www/test/network_shared starting all threads by creating starting gate file /var/www/test/network_shared/starting_gate.tmp host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 00,elapsed = 4.242312,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 01,elapsed = 4.250831,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 02,elapsed = 3.771269,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 03,elapsed = 4.060653,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 04,elapsed = 3.880653,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 05,elapsed = 3.847107,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 06,elapsed = 3.895537,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 07,elapsed = 3.966394,files = 50000,records = 0,status = ok total threads = 8 total files = 400000 100.00% of requested files processed, minimum is 70.00 4.250831 sec elapsed time 94099.245073 files/sec root@app1:~/smallfile-master# As you can see it's now crazy fast, I think close to or faster than nfs !! What the hell!??! I'm so exited I already post. Any suggestions for those parameters? I will do additional testing over here , because this is ridiculous. That woud mean defaults or no good at all... Would it be possible to profile the client [1] with defaults and the set of options used now? That could help in understanding the performance delta better. Thanks, Vijay [1] https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Performance%20Testing/#client-side-profiling _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
