Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
__
>> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajneil.t...@gmail.com>
<mailto:ajneil.t...@gmail.com <mailto:ajneil.t...@gmail.com>>>
>> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org>
<mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org>>>
>> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM
>> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts
limits in
RHES
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted
that the
>> > RHES
>> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a
disperse set to
8. Is
>> > there
>> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a
power of 2,
>> > but
>> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on
going
with 16+3.
>> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Alastair
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>>
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>>
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>>
>> ___
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>>
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
--
Pranith
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
so the bottleneck is that computations with 16x20 matrix require ~4 times the cycles? It seems then that there is ample room for improvement, as there are many linear algebra packages out there that scale better than O(nxm). Is the healing time dominated by the EC compute time? If Serkan saw a hard 2x scaling then it seems likely. -Alastair On 8 May 2017 at 03:02, Xavier Hernandez <xhernan...@datalab.es> wrote: > On 05/05/17 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com >> <mailto:cobanser...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 >> configuration. >> >> >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! >> > > Matrix multiplication for encoding/decoding of 8+2 is 4 times faster than > 16+4 (one matrix of 16x16 is composed by 4 submatrices of 8x8), however > each matrix operation on a 16+4 configuration takes twice the amount of > data of a 8+2, so net effect is that 8+2 is twice as fast as 16+4. > > An 8+2 also uses bigger blocks on each brick, processing the same amount > of data in less I/O operations and bigger network packets. > > Probably these are the reasons why 16+4 is slower than 8+2. > > See my other email for more detailed description. > > Xavi > > >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> <pkara...@redhat.com <mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban >> <cobanser...@gmail.com <mailto:cobanser...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then >> heal >> >> speed. >> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals >> on >> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. >> > >> > >> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC >> set number >> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per >> file or >> > the over all time it took to heal the data? >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey >> <aspan...@redhat.com <mailto:aspan...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just >> suggestions. >> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >> >> > >> >> > Ashish >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com >> <mailto:ajneil.t...@gmail.com>> >> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org >> <mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org>> >> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in >> RHES >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted >> that the >> >> > RHES >> >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to >> 8. Is >> >> > there >> >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a >> power of 2, >> >> > but >> >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going >> with 16+3. >> >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Alastair >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ___ >> >> > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org> >> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> >
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
>What network do you have? We have 2X10G bonded interfaces on each server. Thanks to Xavier for detailed explanation of EC details. On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Alastair Neil <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > What network do you have? > > > On 5 May 2017 at 09:51, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In our use case every node has 26 bricks. I am using 60 nodes, one 9PB >> volume with 16+4 EC configuration, each brick in a sub-volume is on >> different host. >> We put 15-20k 2GB files every day into 10-15 folders. So it is 1500K >> files/folder. Our gluster version is 3.7.11. >> Heal speed in this environment is 8-10MB/sec/brick. >> >> I did some tests for parallel self heal feature with version 3.9, two >> servers 26 bricks each, 8+2 and 16+4 EC configuration. >> This was a small test environment and the results are as I said 8+2 is >> 2x faster then 16+4 with parallel self heal threads set to 2/4. >> In 1-2 months our new servers arriving, I will do detailed tests for >> heal performance for 8+2 and 16+4 and inform you the results. >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 >> >>> configuration. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about >> >> this >> >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! >> > >> > >> > From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on >> > the >> > volume, right? It could be because of the bug >> > https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I >> > could >> > guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give >> > us >> > a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to >> > simulate similar looking directory structure. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> >>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban >> >>> > <cobanser...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >> >>> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then >> >>> >> heal >> >>> >> speed. >> >>> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals >> >>> >> on >> >>> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set >> >>> > number >> >>> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per >> >>> > file >> >>> > or >> >>> > the over all time it took to heal the data? >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just >> >>> >> > suggestions. >> >>> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Ashish >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> >> >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >> >>> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in >> >>>
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
On 05/05/17 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com
<mailto:cobanser...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2
configuration.
Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this
to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback!
Matrix multiplication for encoding/decoding of 8+2 is 4 times faster
than 16+4 (one matrix of 16x16 is composed by 4 submatrices of 8x8),
however each matrix operation on a 16+4 configuration takes twice the
amount of data of a 8+2, so net effect is that 8+2 is twice as fast as 16+4.
An 8+2 also uses bigger blocks on each brick, processing the same amount
of data in less I/O operations and bigger network packets.
Probably these are the reasons why 16+4 is slower than 8+2.
See my other email for more detailed description.
Xavi
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkara...@redhat.com <mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban
<cobanser...@gmail.com <mailto:cobanser...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration.
>> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal
>> speed.
>> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on
>> 8+2 is faster by 2x.
>
>
> As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC
set number
> of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per
file or
> the over all time it took to heal the data?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey
<aspan...@redhat.com <mailto:aspan...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just
suggestions.
>> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue.
>> >
>> > Ashish
>> >
>> >
>> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajneil.t...@gmail.com>>
>> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org
<mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org>>
>> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM
>> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in
RHES
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted
that the
>> > RHES
>> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to
8. Is
>> > there
>> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a
power of 2,
>> > but
>> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going
with 16+3.
>> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Alastair
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
>> ___
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users@gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org>
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
--
Pranith
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
What network do you have? On 5 May 2017 at 09:51, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: > In our use case every node has 26 bricks. I am using 60 nodes, one 9PB > volume with 16+4 EC configuration, each brick in a sub-volume is on > different host. > We put 15-20k 2GB files every day into 10-15 folders. So it is 1500K > files/folder. Our gluster version is 3.7.11. > Heal speed in this environment is 8-10MB/sec/brick. > > I did some tests for parallel self heal feature with version 3.9, two > servers 26 bricks each, 8+2 and 16+4 EC configuration. > This was a small test environment and the results are as I said 8+2 is > 2x faster then 16+4 with parallel self heal threads set to 2/4. > In 1-2 months our new servers arriving, I will do detailed tests for > heal performance for 8+2 and 16+4 and inform you the results. > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 > >>> configuration. > >> > >> > >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this > >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! > > > > > > From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on > the > > volume, right? It could be because of the bug > > https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I > could > > guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give > us > > a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to > > simulate similar looking directory structure. > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com > > > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. > >>> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal > >>> >> speed. > >>> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on > >>> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set > >>> > number > >>> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per > file > >>> > or > >>> > the over all time it took to heal the data? > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just > >>> >> > suggestions. > >>> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Ashish > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> > >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM > >>> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in > RHES > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Hi > >>> >> > > >>> >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that > the > >>> >> > RHES > >>> >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. > >>> >> > Is > >>> >> > there > >>> >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power > of > >>> >> > 2, > >>> >> > but > >>> >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with > >>> >> > 16+3. > >>> >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Thanks, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Alastair > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ___ > >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ___ > >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> >> ___ > >>> >> Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Pranith > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Pranith > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pranith > ___ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
Wondering if Xavi knows something. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In our use case every node has 26 bricks. I am using 60 nodes, one 9PB >> volume with 16+4 EC configuration, each brick in a sub-volume is on >> different host. >> We put 15-20k 2GB files every day into 10-15 folders. So it is 1500K >> files/folder. Our gluster version is 3.7.11. >> Heal speed in this environment is 8-10MB/sec/brick. >> >> I did some tests for parallel self heal feature with version 3.9, two >> servers 26 bricks each, 8+2 and 16+4 EC configuration. >> This was a small test environment and the results are as I said 8+2 is >> 2x faster then 16+4 with parallel self heal threads set to 2/4. >> In 1-2 months our new servers arriving, I will do detailed tests for >> heal performance for 8+2 and 16+4 and inform you the results. >> > > In that case I still don't know why this is the case. Thanks for the > inputs. I will also try to find out how long a 2GB file takes in 8+2 vs > 16+4 and see if there is something I need to look closely. > > >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 >> >>> configuration. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about >> this >> >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! >> > >> > >> > From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on >> the >> > volume, right? It could be because of the bug >> > https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I >> could >> > guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could >> give us >> > a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to >> > simulate similar looking directory structure. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> >>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban < >> cobanser...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >> >>> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then >> heal >> >>> >> speed. >> >>> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals >> on >> >>> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set >> >>> > number >> >>> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per >> file >> >>> > or >> >>> > the over all time it took to heal the data? >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com >> > >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just >> >>> >> > suggestions. >> >>> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Ashish >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> >> >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >> >>> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: > In our use case every node has 26 bricks. I am using 60 nodes, one 9PB > volume with 16+4 EC configuration, each brick in a sub-volume is on > different host. > We put 15-20k 2GB files every day into 10-15 folders. So it is 1500K > files/folder. Our gluster version is 3.7.11. > Heal speed in this environment is 8-10MB/sec/brick. > > I did some tests for parallel self heal feature with version 3.9, two > servers 26 bricks each, 8+2 and 16+4 EC configuration. > This was a small test environment and the results are as I said 8+2 is > 2x faster then 16+4 with parallel self heal threads set to 2/4. > In 1-2 months our new servers arriving, I will do detailed tests for > heal performance for 8+2 and 16+4 and inform you the results. > In that case I still don't know why this is the case. Thanks for the inputs. I will also try to find out how long a 2GB file takes in 8+2 vs 16+4 and see if there is something I need to look closely. > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 > >>> configuration. > >> > >> > >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this > >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! > > > > > > From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on > the > > volume, right? It could be because of the bug > > https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I > could > > guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give > us > > a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to > > simulate similar looking directory structure. > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com > > > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. > >>> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal > >>> >> speed. > >>> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on > >>> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set > >>> > number > >>> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per > file > >>> > or > >>> > the over all time it took to heal the data? > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just > >>> >> > suggestions. > >>> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Ashish > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> > >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM > >>> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in > RHES > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Hi > >>> >> > > >>> >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that > the > >>> >> > RHES > >>> >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. > >>> >> > Is > >>> >> > there > >>> >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power > of > >>> >> > 2, > >>> >> > but > >>> >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with > >>> >> > 16+3. > >>> >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Thanks, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Alastair > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ___ > >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ___ > >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> >> ___ > >>> >> Gluster-users mailing list > >>> >> Gluster-users@gluster.org > >>> >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Pranith > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Pranith > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pranith > -- Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
In our use case every node has 26 bricks. I am using 60 nodes, one 9PB volume with 16+4 EC configuration, each brick in a sub-volume is on different host. We put 15-20k 2GB files every day into 10-15 folders. So it is 1500K files/folder. Our gluster version is 3.7.11. Heal speed in this environment is 8-10MB/sec/brick. I did some tests for parallel self heal feature with version 3.9, two servers 26 bricks each, 8+2 and 16+4 EC configuration. This was a small test environment and the results are as I said 8+2 is 2x faster then 16+4 with parallel self heal threads set to 2/4. In 1-2 months our new servers arriving, I will do detailed tests for heal performance for 8+2 and 16+4 and inform you the results. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 >>> configuration. >> >> >> Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this >> to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! > > > From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on the > volume, right? It could be because of the bug > https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I could > guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give us > a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to > simulate similar looking directory structure. > >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >>> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal >>> >> speed. >>> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on >>> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. >>> > >>> > >>> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set >>> > number >>> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file >>> > or >>> > the over all time it took to heal the data? >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just >>> >> > suggestions. >>> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >>> >> > >>> >> > Ashish >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> >>> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >>> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Hi >>> >> > >>> >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the >>> >> > RHES >>> >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. >>> >> > Is >>> >> > there >>> >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of >>> >> > 2, >>> >> > but >>> >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with >>> >> > 16+3. >>> >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks, >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Alastair >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > ___ >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > ___ >>> >> > Gluster-users mailing list >>> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >>> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >> ___ >>> >> Gluster-users mailing list >>> >> Gluster-users@gluster.org >>> >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Pranith >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Pranith > > > > > -- > Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 >> configuration. >> > > Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this > to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! > >From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on the volume, right? It could be because of the bug https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I could guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give us a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to simulate similar looking directory structure. > > >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri >> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >> >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal >> >> speed. >> >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on >> >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. >> > >> > >> > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set >> number >> > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file >> or >> > the over all time it took to heal the data? >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just >> suggestions. >> >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >> >> > >> >> > Ashish >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> >> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> >> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >> >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the >> >> > RHES >> >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. >> Is >> >> > there >> >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of >> 2, >> >> > but >> >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with >> 16+3. >> >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Alastair >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ___ >> >> > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ___ >> >> > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >> >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> ___ >> >> Gluster-users mailing list >> >> Gluster-users@gluster.org >> >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Pranith >> > > > > -- > Pranith > -- Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 > configuration. > Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback! > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. > >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal > >> speed. > >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on > >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. > > > > > > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set > number > > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file > or > > the over all time it took to heal the data? > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just > suggestions. > >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. > >> > > >> > Ashish > >> > > >> > > >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> > >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> > >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM > >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the > >> > RHES > >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is > >> > there > >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of > 2, > >> > but > >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with > 16+3. > >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > > >> > Alastair > >> > > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >> > > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org > >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >> ___ > >> Gluster-users mailing list > >> Gluster-users@gluster.org > >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pranith > -- Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 configuration. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. >> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal >> speed. >> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on >> 8+2 is faster by 2x. > > > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set number > of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file or > the over all time it took to heal the data? > >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions. >> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. >> > >> > Ashish >> > >> > ____ >> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> >> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> >> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM >> > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES >> > >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the >> > RHES >> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is >> > there >> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, >> > but >> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. >> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > Alastair >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Gluster-users mailing list >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Gluster-users mailing list >> > Gluster-users@gluster.org >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> ___ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users@gluster.org >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > -- > Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. > We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal speed. > I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on > 8+2 is faster by 2x. > As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set number of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file or the over all time it took to heal the data? > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions. > > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. > > > > Ashish > > > > > > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> > > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> > > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM > > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES > > > > > > Hi > > > > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES > > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is > there > > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, > but > > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. > > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Alastair > > > > > > ___ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users@gluster.org > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > > ___ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users@gluster.org > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > ___ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -- Pranith ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration. We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal speed. I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on 8+2 is faster by 2x. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions. > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. > > Ashish > > > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM > Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES > > > Hi > > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is there > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, but > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. > > Thanks, > > > Alastair > > > ___ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > ___ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions. You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. Ashish - Original Message - From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.t...@gmail.com> To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@gluster.org> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES Hi we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is there any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, but as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. Thanks, Alastair ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
Hi we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is there any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, but as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us. Thanks, Alastair ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
