[Gluster-users] GlusterFS Preformance

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:05:58 -0700
Liam Slusser <lslusser at gmail.com> wrote:

> You have to remember that when you are writing with NFS you're writing to
> one node, where as your gluster setup below is copying the same data to two
> nodes;  so you're doubling the bandwidth.  Dont expect nfs like performance
> on writing with multiple storage bricks.  However read performance should be
> quite good.
> liam

Do you think this problem can be solved by using 2 storage bricks on two
different network cards on the client?

Regards,
Stephan

> 
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Hiren Joshi <josh at moonfruit.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm currently evaluating gluster with the intention of replacing our
> > current setup and have a few questions:
> >
> > At the moment, we have a large SAN which is split into 10 partitions and
> > served out via NFS. For gluster, I was thinking 12 nodes to make up
> > about 6TB (mirrored so that's 1TB per node) and served out using
> > gluster. What sort of filesystem should I be using for the nodes
> > (currently on ext3) to give me the best performance and recoverability?
> >
> > Also, I setup a test with a simple mirrored pair with a client that
> > looks like:
> > volume glust3
> >  type protocol/client
> >  option transport-type tcp/client
> >  option remote-host glust3
> >  option remote-port 6996
> >  option remote-subvolume brick
> > end-volume
> > volume glust4
> >  type protocol/client
> >  option transport-type tcp/client
> >  option remote-host glust4
> >  option remote-port 6996
> >  option remote-subvolume brick
> > end-volume
> > volume mirror1
> >  type cluster/replicate
> >  subvolumes glust3 glust4
> > end-volume
> > volume writebehind
> >  type performance/write-behind
> >  option window-size 1MB
> >  subvolumes mirror1
> > end-volume
> > volume cache
> >  type performance/io-cache
> >  option cache-size 512MB
> >  subvolumes writebehind
> > end-volume
> >
> >
> > I ran a basic test by writing 1G to an NFS server and this gluster pair:
> > [root at glust1 ~]# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/glust2_nfs/nfs_test
> > bs=65536 count=15625
> > 15625+0 records in
> > 15625+0 records out
> > 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 1718.16 seconds, 596 kB/s
> >
> > real    28m38.278s
> > user    0m0.010s
> > sys     0m0.650s
> > [root at glust1 ~]# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/glust/glust_test bs=65536
> > count=15625
> > 15625+0 records in
> > 15625+0 records out
> > 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 3572.31 seconds, 287 kB/s
> >
> > real    59m32.745s
> > user    0m0.010s
> > sys     0m0.010s
> >
> >
> > With it taking almost twice as long, can I expect this sort of
> > performance degradation on 'real' servers? Also, what sort of setup
> > would you recommend for us?
> >
> > Can anyone help?
> > Thanks,
> > Josh.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-users mailing list
> > Gluster-users at gluster.org
> > http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> >
>