[Gluster-users] ganesha BFS

[Prasun Gera]

Thanks. Yes, I'll give it a shot in the future. Unfortunately, I don't have
any spare systems to run experiments on. I might enable pNFS with the
single MDS in the current RHS version though and do some initial tests.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Anand Subramanian <ansubram at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Hi Prasun,
>
> pNFS was recently released in a "tech-preview" form. With multiple MDS-es
> or even an all-symmetric arch (every ganesha node can act as both DS and
> MDS, which will also be a supported config) you could potentially see
> improvements (due to increased throughput) but, from our experiments so far
> (and this is certainly work in progress) there is much improved perf for
> large files and not so much for small file i/o (using distributed iozone
> workloads). That said, we have not done a lot of work playing around with
> the tuneables  as yet (glusterfs side options and things like vm-background
> ratio and vm-dirty ratio tuning on the OS side) for small file pNFS access,
> so it is pending exercise at this point. We can confirm only when these
> performance experiments are completed. But if you happen to have large
> files as well, it should be a win. And the best part is, it comes at zero
> extra cost to try it out.
>
> If you have the bandwidth, you should probably give pnfs a spin with the
> latest glusterfs versions if you want very quick answers. It is quite easy
> to setup and we could lend a helping hand there. And maybe you will
> pleasantly surprise us  ;-) :)
>
> Anand
>
>
>
> On 08/13/2015 12:18 PM, Prasun Gera wrote:
>
> Thanks. For small files and random I/O, nfs has been recommended over
> fuse. Would pNFS, with multiple MDS'es in the future, be the recommended
> approach for small files ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Soumya Koduri <skoduri at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It depends on the workload. Like native NFS, even with NFS-Ganesha, data
>> is routed through the server where its mounted from. In addition NFSv4.x
>> protocol adds more complexity and cannot be directly compared with NFSv3
>> traffic. However with pNFS, I/O is routed to data servers directly by the
>> NFS clients which results in performance gain for larger I/O workloads.
>> Also we do have plan to support multiple metadata servers going forward.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Soumya
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Prasun Gera" <prasun.gera at gmail.com>
>> To: "Joe Julian" <joe at julianfamily.org>
>> Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:55:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] ganesha BFS
>>
>> And do either of them perform better than fuse mounts ? With native nfs,
>> all data is routed through the server where it's mounted from, which makes
>> HA and load balancing difficult. For pNFS, there is a single metadata
>> server. How does that affect HA and load ? I thought one of the main goals
>> of gluster was decentralized metadata. Where do the four options (fuse,
>> native nfs, nfsv4, pnfs ) stand in terms of benefits and disadvantages ?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Julian < joe at julianfamily.org >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> nfs-ganesha is a much more feature rich nfs server that uses libgfapi to
>> access the gluster volume in userspace. This userspace solution avoids the
>> context switches like the native gluster nfs does, but adds support for
>> pnfs/nfsv4 and udp.
>>
>> From the development standpoint, they have a full set of developers
>> working only on and focused only on their nfs server whereas the gluster
>> version was implemented as a stop-gap to provide a solution where the
>> kernel nfs re-share was failing.
>>
>> I think nfs-ganesha is a better solution. There is integration work being
>> done in glusterfs to make its use seamless, so I suspect that's the
>> long-term nfs solution that will eventually replace gluster's native nfs.
>>
>>
>> On 08/12/2015 09:54 AM, paf1 at email.cz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Dears,
>>
>> can anybody explain advanteges / disadvantages of Ganesha NFS ??
>> Will U reccomend me go through this way ??
>> ( 4 node glusterFS )
>> regs.
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing listGluster-users at gluster.orghttp://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150815/0710843a/attachment.html>