On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Steve Dainard <[email protected]>wrote:
> Not sure what a good method to bench this would be, but: > > An NFS mount point on virt host: > [root@ovirt001 iso-store]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test1 bs=4k count=100000 > 100000+0 records in > 100000+0 records out > 409600000 bytes (410 MB) copied, 3.95399 s, 104 MB/s > > Raw brick performance on gluster server (yes, I know I shouldn't write > directly to the brick): > [root@gluster1 iso-store]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=4k count=100000 > 100000+0 records in > 100000+0 records out > 409600000 bytes (410 MB) copied, 3.06743 s, 134 MB/s > > Gluster mount point on gluster server: > [root@gluster1 iso-store]# > dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=4k count=100000 > 100000+0 records in > 100000+0 records out > 409600000 bytes (410 MB) copied, 19.5766 s, 20.9 MB/s > > The storage servers are a bit older, but are both dual socket quad core > opterons with 4x 7200rpm drives. > > I'm in the process of setting up a share from my desktop and I'll see if I > can bench between the two systems. Not sure if my ssd will impact the > tests, I've heard there isn't an advantage using ssd storage for glusterfs. > > Does anyone have a hardware reference design for glusterfs as a backend > for virt? Or is there a benchmark utility? > Check this thread out, http://raobharata.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/qemu-glusterfs-native-integration/it's quite dated but I remember seeing similar figures. In fact when I used FIO on a libgfapi mounted VM I got slightly faster read/write speeds than on the physical box itself (I assume because of some level of caching). On NFS it was close to half.. You'll probably get a little more interesting results using FIO opposed to dd > > *Steve Dainard * > IT Infrastructure Manager > Miovision <http://miovision.com/> | *Rethink Traffic* > 519-513-2407 ex.250 > 877-646-8476 (toll-free) > > *Blog <http://miovision.com/blog> | **LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/miovision-technologies> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/miovision> | Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/miovision>* > ------------------------------ > Miovision Technologies Inc. | 148 Manitou Drive, Suite 101, Kitchener, > ON, Canada | N2C 1L3 > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any > attachments and notify us immediately. > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Andrew Cathrow <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Are we sure that the issue is the guest I/O - what's the raw performance >> on the host accessing the gluster storage? >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Steve Dainard" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"Itamar Heim" <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *"Ronen Hod" <[email protected]>, "users" <[email protected]>, "Sanjay >> Rao" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:56:58 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [Users] Extremely poor disk access speeds in Windows guest >> >> >> I have two options, virtio and virtio-scsi. >> >> I was using virtio, and have also attempted virtio-scsi on another >> Windows guest with the same results. >> >> Using the newest drivers, virtio-win-0.1-74.iso. >> >> *Steve Dainard * >> IT Infrastructure Manager >> Miovision <http://miovision.com/> | *Rethink Traffic* >> 519-513-2407 ex.250 >> 877-646-8476 (toll-free) >> >> *Blog <http://miovision.com/blog> | **LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/miovision-technologies> | Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/miovision> | Facebook >> <https://www.facebook.com/miovision>* >> ------------------------------ >> Miovision Technologies Inc. | 148 Manitou Drive, Suite 101, Kitchener, >> ON, Canada | N2C 1L3 >> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. >> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any >> attachments and notify us immediately. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Itamar Heim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 01/23/2014 07:46 PM, Steve Dainard wrote: >>> >>>> Backing Storage: Gluster Replica >>>> Storage Domain: NFS >>>> Ovirt Hosts: CentOS 6.5 >>>> Ovirt version: 3.3.2 >>>> Network: GigE >>>> # of VM's: 3 - two Linux guests are idle, one Windows guest is >>>> installing updates. >>>> >>>> I've installed a Windows 2008 R2 guest with virtio disk, and all the >>>> drivers from the latest virtio iso. I've also installed the spice agent >>>> drivers. >>>> >>>> Guest disk access is horribly slow, Resource monitor during Windows >>>> updates shows Disk peaking at 1MB/sec (scale never increases) and Disk >>>> Queue Length Peaking at 5 and looks to be sitting at that level 99% of >>>> the time. 113 updates in Windows has been running solidly for about 2.5 >>>> hours and is at 89/113 updates complete. >>>> >>> >>> virtio-block or virtio-scsi? >>> which windows guest driver version for that? >>> >>> >>>> I can't say my Linux guests are blisteringly fast, but updating a guest >>>> from RHEL 6.3 fresh install to 6.5 took about 25 minutes. >>>> >>>> If anyone has any ideas, please let me know - I haven't found any tuning >>>> docs for Windows guests that could explain this issue. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> *Steve Dainard * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
