[Bugs] [Bug 1358606] limited throughput with disperse volume over small number of bricks

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606

Manoj Pillai <mpillai at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pkarampu at redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Manoj Pillai <mpillai at redhat.com> ---

Based on a conversation with Pranith, re-ran the test by creating the 1x(4+2)
volume (as before, each brick on a RAID-6 device, 6 servers, 1 brick per
server). But this time, used multiple mount points on the client:

<quote>
[...]
gprfs045-10ge:/perfvol          4.0T  135M  4.0T   1% /mnt/glustervol1
gprfs045-10ge:/perfvol          4.0T  135M  4.0T   1% /mnt/glustervol2
gprfs045-10ge:/perfvol          4.0T  135M  4.0T   1% /mnt/glustervol3
gprfs045-10ge:/perfvol          4.0T  135M  4.0T   1% /mnt/glustervol4
</quote>

command:
iozone -i 0 -w -+n -c -e -s 10g -r 64k -t 8 -F /mnt/glustervol1/f1.ioz
/mnt/glustervol1/f2.ioz /mnt/glustervol2/f3.ioz /mnt/glustervol2/f4.ioz
/mnt/glustervol3/f5.ioz /mnt/glustervol3/f6.ioz /mnt/glustervol4/f7.ioz
/mnt/glustervol4/f8.ioz

result:
throughput for  8 initial writers  =  791249.52 kB/sec

So when the volume is mounted multiple times on the client or when then are
multiple bricks on the server, the performance is good.

Pranith has a hypothesis for what is going on here, which is what led to the
multiple-mount test. I'll let him explain.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.