[Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] gNFS vs NFS Ganesha performance (was: Re: Proposal to change gNFSstatus

[Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay]

It would be good to compare and contrast performance numbers based on
additional detail about the test workbench as well as configuration for the
workloads. Else, it is just a lot of graphs along with lists of end-results
and drawing inferences are difficult.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:

> Spinning off the conversation, comments within
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:28 AM Xie Changlong <zgrep at 139.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Interesting - we've seen far better performance with Ganesha v4.1 vs.
>> gnfs.
>>
>> Would be great if you could share the details.
>>
>> vdbench 6/4  random read/write
>>
>>
>>
> You are comparing old versions of Gluster (assuming it's downstream, Red
> Hat's version - it was released January 2018 - almost 2 years ago) and
> certainly an old version of NFS Ganesha.
> We believe newer releases are substantially better.
> Just sharing the internal number of improvement we are seeing:
> glusterfs-6.0-17 vs glusterfs-3.12.2-47 (rhel 7.7)
> 33.86%
> 1075.49%
> 232.88%
> 761.36%
> 91.15%
> 138.01%
> -30.07%  <-- there's a bug about it.
> 28.59%
> 12.36%
> -1.44%
>
> (The RHEL release isn't up-to-date either)
>
> Y.
>
> Same for NFS Ganesha and Windows support.
>>
>> ganesha 2.5.5,  glusterfs 3.12.2, windows server 2003. Use windows nfsv3
>> mount nfs-ganesha and test read/write with vdbench50406. Following is crash
>> bt
>>
>> Btw, the environment has been redeployed, so i can't share more.
>>
>>
>> It's difficult to counterpart without referring to specific issues. It's
>> eveb to harder to fix them ;-)
>>
>> Gnfs is stable enough, we have about ~1000 servers, 4~24 servers for a
>>> gluster cluster, about ~2000 nfs clients, all works fine till the last two
>>> years expect some memleak issue.
>>>
>>
>> Nice! Would be great for the Gluster community to learn more about the
>> use case!
>>
>>
>> It's my pleasure.
>>
>>
>> Y.
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>     -Xie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Amar Tumballi <amarts at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> As per the discussion on https://review.gluster.org/23645, recently we
>>>> changed the status of gNFS (gluster's native NFSv3 support) feature to
>>>> 'Depricated / Orphan' state. (ref:
>>>> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L185..L189).
>>>> With this email, I am proposing to change the status again to 'Odd Fixes'
>>>> (ref: https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L22
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR;
>>>>
>>>> I understand the current maintainers are not able to focus on
>>>> maintaining it as the focus of the project, as earlier described, is
>>>> keeping NFS-Ganesha based integration with glusterfs. But, I am
>>>> volunteering along with Xie Changlong (currently working at Chinamobile),
>>>> to keep the feature running as it used to in previous versions. Hence the
>>>> status of 'Odd Fixes'.
>>>>
>>>> Before sending the patch to make these changes, I am proposing it here
>>>> now, as gNFS is not even shipped with latest glusterfs-7.0 releases. I have
>>>> heard from some users that it was working great for them with earlier
>>>> releases, as all they wanted was NFS v3 support, and not much of features
>>>> from gNFS. Also note that, even though the packages are not built, none of
>>>> the regression tests using gNFS are stopped with latest master, so it is
>>>> working same from at least last 2 years.
>>>>
>>>> I request the package maintainers to please add '--with gnfs' (or
>>>> --enable-gnfs) back to their release script through this email, so those
>>>> users wanting to use gNFS happily can continue to use it. Also points to
>>>> users/admins is that, the status is 'Odd Fixes', so don't expect any
>>>> 'enhancements' on the features provided by gNFS.
>>>>
>>>> Happy to hear feedback, if any.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Amar
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20191122/5f480284/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nehilhidedagefho.png
Type: image/png
Size: 29338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20191122/5f480284/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mncknlfpefcedmbl.png
Type: image/png
Size: 198351 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20191122/5f480284/attachment-0003.png>