[Gluster-users] GlusterFS Vs NFS Read Performance confusing
mohan L
l.mohanphy at gmail.com
Fri Jan 2 07:10:09 UTC 2009
we're conducting performance benchmark runs to evaluate Linux performance
as NFS file servers.
It is observed that an unusual high percentage of benchmark time was spent
in "read" operation.
A sampled workload consisting of 18% of read consumes 63% of total benchmark
time. Did this
problem get analyzed before (or even better :)-is there a patch) ? We're on
2.4.19 kernel- NFS
V3 - UDP, with EXT3 as local file system.
Thanks in advance.
gluster-users at gluster.org
Dear All,
we are currently using NFS to meet data sharing requirements.Now we are
facing some performance and scalability problem ,so this form does not meet
the requirements of our network(performance).So we are finding the possible
solutions to increase the performance and scalability .To give very strong
solution to NFS issue I have analysed two File System one is GlusterFS and
another one is Red Hat GFS.we conclude that GlusterFS will increase the
performance and scalability ,It has all the features we are looking .For the
testing purpose I am benchmarking NFS and GlusterFS to get better
performance .My benchmark result shows that GlusterFS give better
performance ,but i am getting some unacceptable read performance . I am not
able to understand how exactly the read operation performs NFS and GlusterFS
.even I don't know anything i am doing wrong.here i am showing the benchmark
result to get better idea of my read performance issuee .i have attached the
result of NFS and GlusterFS read values .any one can please go thro this
and give me some valuable guide .It will make my benchmarking very effective
.
This my server and client Hardware and software :
HARDWARE CONFIG:
Processor core speed : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz
Number of cores : Single Core (not dual-core)
RAM size : 384MB(128MB+256MB)
RAM type : DDR
RAM Speed : 266 MHz (3.8 ns)
Swap : 1027MB
Storage controller : ATA device
Disk model/size : SAMSUNG SV4012H /40 GB,2 MB Cache,
Storage speed : 52.4 MB/sec
Spindle Speed : 5400 rpm(Revolution per Minute)
NIC Type : VIA Rhine III chipset IRQ 18
NIC Speed : 100 Mbps/Full-Duplex Card
SOFTWARE:
Operation System : Fedora Core 9 GNU/Linux
Linux version : 2.6.9-42
Local FS : Ext3
NFS version : 1.1.2
GlusterFS version: glusterfs 1.3.8 built on Feb 3 2008
Iozone : iozone-3-5.fc9.i386 (File System Benchmark Tool)
ttcp : ttcp-1.12-18.fc9.i386(RAW throughput measurement Tool)
This is the server and client vol files i am using the benchmarking
#GlusterFS Server Volume Specification
volume brick
type storage/posix # POSIX FS translator
option directory /bench # /bench dir contains 25,000 files with
size 10 KB 15KB
end-volume
volume iot
type performance/io-threads
option thread-count 4
option cache-size 8MB
subvolumes brick
end-volume
volume server
type protocol/server
option transport-type tcp/server
subvolumes iot
option auth.ip.brick.allow * # Allow access to "brick" volume
end-volume
# GlusterFS Client Volume Specification
volume client
type protocol/client
option transport-type tcp/client
option remote-host 192.xxx.x.xxx
option remote-subvolume brick
end-volume
volume readahead
type performance/read-ahead
option page-size 128KB # 256KB is the default option
option page-count 4 # cache per file = (page-count x page-size) 2 is
default option
subvolumes client
end-volume
volume iocache
type performance/io-cache
#option page-size 128KB ## default is 32MB
option cache-size 256MB #128KB is default option
option page-count 4
subvolumes readahead
end-volume
volume writeback
type performance/write-behind
option aggregate-size 128KB
option flush-behind on
subvolumes iocache
end-volume
I am confusing this result .I don't have idea how to trace and get good
comparable result is read performance .I think I am miss understanding the
buffer cache concepts .
>From attached NFS read result , I understand that I have 348MB RAM and I am
doing the benchmark file size rage 128KB to 1GB .So up to file size 256MB I
am getting buffer cache performance and file size 512MB ,1GB I am getting
with in link speed .But in case of GlusterFS I not able to understand what
is happening .
Please any one can help me .
NFS :
iozone -Raceb ./perffinal.wks -y 4K -q 128K -n 128K -g 1G -i 0 -i 1
Reader
4 8 16 32
64 128
128 744701 727625 935039 633768 499971 391433
256 920892 1085148 1057519 931149 551834 380335
512 937558 1075517 1100810 904515 558917 368605
1024 974395 1072149 1094105 969724 555319 379390
2048 1026059 1125318 1137073 1005356 568252 375232
4096 1021220 1144780 1169589 1030467 578615 376367
8192 965366 1153315 1071693 1072681 607040 371771
16384 1008989 1133837 1163806 1046171 600500 376056
32768 1022692 1165701 1175739 1065870 630626 363563
65536 1005490 1152909 1168181 1048258 631148 374343
131072 1011405 1161491 1176534 1048509 637910 375741
262144 1011217 1130486 1118877 1075740 636433 375511
524288 9563 9562 9568 9551 9525 9562
1048576 9499 9520 9513 9535 9493 9469
GlusterFS:
iozone -Raceb /root/glusterfs/perfgfs2.wks -y 4K -q 128K -n 128K -g 1G -i 0
-i 1
Reader Report
4 8 16 32 64 128
128 48834 50395 49785 48593 48450 47959
256 15276 15209 15210 15100 14998 14973
512 12343 12333 12340 12291 12202 12213
1024 11330 11334 11327 11303 11276 11283
2048 10875 10881 10877 10873 10857 10865
4096 10671 10670 9706 10673 9685 10640
8192 10572 10060 10571 10573 10555 10064
16384 10522 10523 10523 10522 10522 10263
32768 10494 10497 10495 10493 10497 10497
65536 10484 10483 10419 10483 10485 10485
131072 10419 10475 10477 10445 10445 10478
262144 10323 10241 10312 10226 10320 10237
524288 10074 9966 9707 8567 8213 9046
1048576 7440 7973 5737 7101 7678 5743
Any idea for this higher value in NFS test .some this is different . But I
am not able to understand.
Thanks for your time
Mohan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090102/3f9e5a0a/attachment.html>
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list