Hi,
The problem is files generated by wordpress, and uploads etc ... so
copying them to frontend hosts whilst making perfect sense assumes I
have control over the code to not write to the local front-end, else we
could have relied on something like lsync.
As it stands, performance is acceptable with nl-cache enabled, but the
fact that we get those ENOENT errors are highly problematic.
Kind Regards,
Jaco Kroon
n 2022/12/14 14:04, Péter Károly JUHÁSZ wrote:
When we used glusterfs for websites, we copied the web dir from
gluster to local on frontend boots, then served it from there.
Jaco Kroon <j...@uls.co.za> 于 2022年12月14日周三 12:49写道：
Hi All,
We've got a glusterfs cluster that houses some php web sites.
This is generally considered a bad idea and we can see why.
With performance.nl-cache on it actually turns out to be very
reasonable, however, with this turned of performance is roughly 5x
worse. meaning a request that would take sub 500ms now takes 2500ms.
In other cases we see far, far worse cases, eg, with nl-cache takes
~1500ms, without takes ~30s (20x worse).
So why not use nl-cache? Well, it results in readdir reporting files
which then fails to open with ENOENT. The cache also never clears
even
though the configuration says nl-cache entries should only be
cached for
60s. Even for "ls -lah" in affected folders you'll notice ???? mark
entries for attributes on files. If this recovers in a reasonable
time
(say, a few seconds, sure).
# gluster volume info
Type: Replicate
Volume ID: cbe08331-8b83-41ac-b56d-88ef30c0f5c7
Status: Started
Snapshot Count: 0
Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2
Transport-type: tcp
Options Reconfigured:
performance.nl-cache: on
cluster.readdir-optimize: on
config.client-threads: 2
config.brick-threads: 4
config.global-threading: on
performance.iot-pass-through: on
storage.fips-mode-rchecksum: on
cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable
cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full
cluster.locking-scheme: granular
client.event-threads: 2
server.event-threads: 2
transport.address-family: inet
nfs.disable: on
cluster.metadata-self-heal: off
cluster.entry-self-heal: off
cluster.data-self-heal: off
cluster.self-heal-daemon: on
server.allow-insecure: on
features.ctime: off
performance.io-cache: on
performance.cache-invalidation: on
features.cache-invalidation: on
performance.qr-cache-timeout: 600
features.cache-invalidation-timeout: 600
performance.io-cache-size: 128MB
performance.cache-size: 128MB
Are there any other recommendations short of abandon all hope of
redundancy and to revert to a single-server setup (for the web
code at
least). Currently the cost of the redundancy seems to outweigh
the benefit.
Glusterfs version 10.2. With patch for --inode-table-size, mounts
happen with:
/usr/sbin/glusterfs --acl --reader-thread-count=2 --lru-limit=524288
--inode-table-size=524288 --invalidate-limit=16 --background-qlen=32
--fuse-mountopts=nodev,nosuid,noexec,noatime --process-name fuse
--volfile-server=127.0.0.1 --volfile-id=gv_home
--fuse-mountopts=nodev,nosuid,noexec,noatime /home
Kind Regards,
Jaco
________
Community Meeting Calendar:
Schedule -
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
Bridge: https://meet.google.com/cpu-eiue-hvk
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
________
Community Meeting Calendar:
Schedule -
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
Bridge: https://meet.google.com/cpu-eiue-hvk
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
