[Gluster-users] AFR performance killer

[Raghavendra G]

Hi Marko,

Thanks for the document. Do you have glusterfs log files taken while
performing these benchmarks?

regards,

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Marko <gluster at sopca.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
> this document is made for my personal reference so it's a little raw.
>
> regards
>
>
> Raghavendra G wrote:
>
> Hi Marko,
>
> The option disable-for-first-nbytes disables write behind for the first n
> bytes written, where n is the value of the option.
>
> Also, Can you please send the benmark results for the tests you carried
> out?
>
> regards,
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Marko <gluster at sopca.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> To clearify:
>>  * im testing with gluisterfs-2.0.0rc7
>>  * all bricks are on same physical server(Xen guests). It's a testing
>> environment.
>>
>> These are a few benchmarks I've done so far:
>>   * time make-many-files #(this is slightly modified version that I've
>> found here:http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/make-many-files.c)
>>   * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=8 count=128000 of=file1MB.bin #(effectively
>> creates lots of small consecutive fops)
>>   * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=25000  of=file100MB.bin #(creates
>> optimal transactions from HDDs physical point of  view. I have best results
>> here with all configurations)
>>   * time cp -a 0 1 2 /tmp #(/tmp is mounted as tmpfs; 0 1 2 are
>> directories created by "make-many-files" )
>>   * time rm 0 1 2 -fr
>>
>> I wish GlusterFS team provided simmilar set of tests so one can measure
>> his performance in a way that can be compared to results from others. I
>> think it would be a great value to all GlusterFS users and developers. I
>> think that to create basic set of these tests is a trivial task( maybe just
>> use mine :D ).
>>
>> Below I attached my configuration.  Without write-back translator I get
>> better results in most of the tests.
>> I can't understand why write-back has such a bad impact on
>> performance(being a performance *booster*).
>> I've also noticed that TCP packets are  much lower than MTU in first
>> benchmark. Meaning write-back doesn't optimize writes.
>> Can you explain that?
>> Can someone help me to get high performance with AFR?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marko
>>
>>
>> #------------- configuration ---------------------
>> ########## server ###########################
>> volume posix-brick
>>  type storage/posix
>>  option directory /srv/gluster
>> end-volume
>>
>> volume lock-brick
>>  type features/posix-locks
>>  subvolumes posix-brick
>>  option mandatory-locks on
>> end-volume
>>
>> volume server
>>       type protocol/server
>>       option transport-type tcp/server
>>       subvolumes lock-brick
>>       option auth.addr.lock-brick.allow *
>> end-volume
>>
>>
>>
>> ########## client ###########################
>>
>> volume brick1
>> type protocol/client
>> option transport-type tcp
>> option remote-host gluster-host1
>> option remote-subvolume lock-brick
>> end-volume
>>
>> volume brick2
>> type protocol/client
>> option transport-type tcp
>> option remote-host gluster-host2
>> option remote-subvolume lock-brick
>> end-volume
>>
>> volume AFR
>> type cluster/replicate
>> subvolumes brick1 brick2
>> end-volume
>>
>> volume wb
>>  type performance/write-behind
>>  subvolumes AFR
>>  option flush-behind on
>>  option window-size 1MB
>>  option aggregate-size 512KB
>> end-volume
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Raghavendra G
>
>
>


-- 
Raghavendra G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090414/a630bfa4/attachment.html>