[Gluster-users] Newbie: Exploring Gluster for large-scale deployment in AWS, large media files, high performance I/O

[Forrest Aldrich]

Sorry, I should have noted that.  380MB is both read and write (I 
confirmed this with a developer).

We do need the NFS stack, as that's how all the code and various many 
Instances work -- we have several "workers" that chop up video on the 
same namespace.  It's not efficient, but that's how it has to be for now.

Redundancy, in terms of the server?   We have RAIDED volumes if that's 
what you're referring to.

Here's a basic outline of the flow (as I understand it):


Video Capture Agent sends in large file of video (30gb +/-)

Administrative host receives and writes to NFS

A process copies this over to another point in the namespace

Another Instance picks up the file, reads and starts processing and 
writes (FFMPEG is involved)


Something like that -- I may not have all the steps, but essentially 
there's a ton of I/O going on.   I know our code model is not efficient, 
but it's complicated and can't just be changed (it's based on an open 
source product and there's some code baggage).

We looked into another product that allegedly scaled out using multiple 
NFS heads with massive local cache (AWS instances) and sharing the same 
space, but it was horrible and just didn't work for us.



Thank you.



On 7/14/15 3:06 PM, Mathieu Chateau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is it 380MB in read or write ? What level of redundancy do you need?
> do you really need nfs stack or just a mount point (and so be able to 
> use native gluster protocol) ?
>
> Gluster load is mostly put on clients, not server (clients do the sync 
> writes to all replica, and do the memory cache)
>
>
> Cordialement,
> Mathieu CHATEAU
> http://www.lotp.fr
>
> 2015-07-14 20:49 GMT+02:00 Forrest Aldrich <forrie at gmail.com 
> <mailto:forrie at gmail.com>>:
>
>     I'm exploring solutions to help us achieve high throughput and
>     scalability within the AWS environment.   Specifically, I work in
>     a department where we handle and produce video content that
>     results in very large files (30GB etc) that must be written to
>     NFS, chopped up and copied over on the same mount (there are some
>     odd limits to the code we use, but that's outside the scope of
>     this question).
>
>     Currently, we're using a commercial vendor with AWS, with
>     dedicated Direct Connect instances as the back end to our
>     production.   We're maxing out at 350 to 380 MB/s which is not
>     enough.  We expect our capacity will double or even triple when we
>     bring on more classes or even other entities and we need to find a
>     way to squeeze out as much I/O as we can.
>
>     Our software model depends on NFS, there's no way around that
>     presently.
>
>     Since GlusterFS uses FUSE, I'm concerned about performance, which
>     is a key issue.   Sounds like a STRIPE would be appropriate.
>
>     My basic understanding of Gluster is the ability to include
>     several "bricks" which could be multiples of either dedicated EBS
>     volumes or even multiple instances of the above commercial vendor,
>     served up via NFS namespace, which would be transparently a single
>     namespace to client connections.   The I/O could be distributed in
>     this manner.
>
>     I wonder if someone here with more experience with the above might
>     elaborate on whether GlusterFS could be used in the above
>     scenario. Specifically, performance I/O.  We'd really like to gain
>     upwards as much as possible, like 700 Mb/s and 1 GB/s and up if
>     possible.
>
>
>
>     Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gluster-users mailing list
>     Gluster-users at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>     http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150714/714555ea/attachment.html>