[Gluster-users] Glusterfs performance tweaks

[Punit Dambiwal]

Hi,

I am getting very slow throughput in the glusterfs (dead slow...even SATA
is better) ... i am using all SSD in my environment.....

I have the following setup :-
A. 4* host machine with Centos 7(Glusterfs 3.6.2 | Distributed Replicated |
replica=2)
B. Each server has 24 SSD as bricks…(Without HW Raid | JBOD)
C. Each server has 2 Additional ssd for OS…
D. Network 2*10G with bonding…(2*E5 CPU and 64GB RAM)

Note :- Performance/Throughput slower then Normal SATA 7200 RPM…even i am
using all SSD in my ENV..

Gluster Volume options :-

+++++++++++++++
Options Reconfigured:
performance.nfs.write-behind-window-size: 1024MB
performance.io-thread-count: 32
performance.cache-size: 1024MB
cluster.quorum-type: auto
cluster.server-quorum-type: server
diagnostics.count-fop-hits: on
diagnostics.latency-measurement: on
nfs.disable: on
user.cifs: enable
auth.allow: *
performance.quick-read: off
performance.read-ahead: off
performance.io-cache: off
performance.stat-prefetch: off
cluster.eager-lock: enable
network.remote-dio: enable
storage.owner-uid: 36
storage.owner-gid: 36
server.allow-insecure: on
network.ping-timeout: 0
diagnostics.brick-log-level: INFO
+++++++++++++++++++

Test with SATA and Glusterfs SSD….
———————
Dell EQL (SATA disk 7200 RPM)
—-
[root at mirror ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 20.7763 s, 12.9 MB/s
[root at mirror ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 23.5947 s, 11.4 MB/s

GlsuterFS SSD
—
[root at sv-VPN1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 66.2572 s, 4.1 MB/s
[root at sv-VPN1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 62.6922 s, 4.3 MB/s
————————

Please let me know what i should do to improve the performance of my
glusterfs…

Thanks,
Punit Dambiwal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150408/55f468ce/attachment.html>