[Gluster-users] Gluster 2.0.3 + Apache on CentOS5 performance issue
somsaks at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 07:39:23 UTC 2009
Thank you very much for you reply
At the time we used 2.0.3, and yes we used stock Apache from CentOS. I will
try 2.0.4 very soon to see if it's work.
For Booster, it seems not working correctly for me. Booster complains a lots
of error with plain 'ls' command (but giving the correct output). Also, with
booster, Apache process refuse to start. I will try 2.0.4 to see if it
improves. If not, I will attach error log next time.
2009/7/30 Raghavendra G <raghavendra at gluster.com>
> Hi Somsak,
> Sorry for the delayed reply. Below you've mentioned that you've problems
> with apache and booster. Going forward, Apache over booster will be the
> preferred approach. Can you tell us what version of glusterfs you are using?
> And as I can understand you are using apache 2.2, am I correct?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Liam Slusser" <lslusser at gmail.com>
> To: "Somsak Sriprayoonsakul" <somsaks at gmail.com>
> Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:46:14 AM GMT +04:00 Abu Dhabi / Muscat
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster 2.0.3 + Apache on CentOS5 performance
> I haven't tried an apples to apples comparison with Apache+mod_gluster vs
> Apache+fuse+gluster however i do run both setups. I load tested both
> so to verified it could handle 4x our normal daily load and left it at
> I didn't actually compare the two (although that might be cool to do
> I really like the idea of Apache+mod_gluster as I don't have to deal with
> the whole fuse and mounting the filesystem. It always scares me having a
> public facing webserver with your whole backend fileshare mounted locally.
> Its very slick for serving content such as media files. We serve audio
> content to our CDN with a pair of Apache/mod_gluster servers - pushing
> 200-300mbit on average daily and everything works very well.
> We run an apache+fuse+gluster setup because we need to run some mod_perl
> before serving the actual content. However performance is still very good.
> We do around 50-100 requests (all jpeg images) per second off of a fuse
> mount and everything works great. We also have a java tomcat+fuse+gluster
> service which does image manipulation on the fly off of a gluster mount.
> We have two backend gluster servers using replication which serve all this
> If you would like more information on our setup id be happy to share
> offline. Just email me privately.
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul
> <somsaks at gmail.com>wrote:
> > Oh thank you, thought noone will reply me :)
> > Have you tried Apache + Fuse over GlusterFS? How is the performance?
> > Also, anyone in this mailing-list have tried Apache with booster? I tried
> > it but Apache refuse to start (just hang and freeze).
> > 2009/7/23 Liam Slusser <lslusser at gmail.com>
> >> We use mod_gluster and Apache
> >> 2.2 with good results. We also ran into the same issue as you that we
> ran out of memory past 150 threads even on a 8gig machine. We got around
> this by compiling Apache using mpm-worker
> >> (threads) instead of prefork - it uses 1/4 as much ram with the same
> >> of connections (150-200) and everything has been running smoothly. I
> >> see any performance difference except it using way less memory.
> >> liam
> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul <
> >> somsaks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>> We have been evaluating the choice for the new platform for a webboard
> >>> system.
> >>> The webboard is PHP scripts that generate/modify HTML page when user
> >>> posting/add comment to the page, resulting topic is actually stored as
> >>> HTML file with all related file (file attach to the topic, etc..
> )stored in
> >>> its own directory for each topic. In general, the web site mostly serve
> >>> lot of small static files using Apache while using PHP to do other
> >>> contents. This system has been working very well in the past, with the
> >>> increasing page view rate, it is very likely that we will need some
> kind of
> >>> Cluster file system as backend very soon.
> >>> We have set up a test system using Grinder as stress test tool. The
> >>> system is 11 machines of Intel Dual Core x86_64 CentOS5 with stock
> >>> (prefork, since the goal is to use this with PHP), linked together with
> >>> Gigabit Ethernet. We try to compare the performance of either using
> >>> NFS server in sync mode against using 4 Gluster nodes (distribute of 2
> >>> replicated nodes) through Fuse. However, the transaction per second
> >>> result is not good.
> >>> NFS (single server, sync mode)
> >>> - 100 thread of client - Peak TPS = 1716.67, Avg. TPS = 1066, mean
> >>> response time = 61.63 ms
> >>> - 200 threads - Peak TPS = 2790, Avg. TPS = 1716, mean rt = 87.33 ms
> >>> - 400 threads - Peak TPS = 3810, Avg. TPS = 1800, mean rt = 165ms
> >>> - 600 threads - Peak TPS = 4506.67, Avg. TPS = 1676.67, mean rt =
> >>> 287.33ms
> >>> 4 nodes Gluster (2 distribute of replicated 2 node)
> >>> - 100 thread - peak TPS = 1293.33, Avg. TPS = 430, mean rt = 207.33ms
> >>> - 200 threads - Peak TPS = 974.67, Avg. TPS = 245.33, mean rt =
> >>> - 300 threads - Peak TPS = 861.33, Avg. TPS = 210, mean rt = 931.33
> >>> (no 400-600 threads since we run out of client machine, sorry).
> >>> gfsd is configured to use 32 thread of iothread as brick. gfs-client is
> >>> configured to use
> >>> io-cache cache-size is 256MB. I used patched Fuse downloaded from
> >>> web-site (build through DKMS).
> >>> As the result yield, it seems that Gluster performance worse with
> >>> increasing no. of client. One observation is that the glusterfs process
> >>> client is taking about 100% of CPU during all the tests. glusterfsd is
> >>> utilizing only 70-80% of CPUs during the test time. Note that system is
> >>> core.
> >>> I also tried using modglusterfs and not using fuse at all to serve all
> >>> the static files and conduct another test with Grinder. The result is
> >>> the same, 1000+ peak TPS with 2-400 avg. TPS. A problem arise in this
> >>> that each Apache prefork process used more about twice more memory and
> >>> need to lower number of httpd processes by about half.
> >>> I tried disable EnableMMAP and it didn't help much. Adjusting
> >>> write behind according to GlusterOptimization page didn't help much
> >>> My question is, there seems to be bottleneck in this setup, but how can
> >>> track this? Note that, I didn't do any other optimization other than
> >>> said above. Are there any best practice configuration for using Apache
> >>> serve a bunch of small static files like this around?
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Somsak
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Gluster-users mailing list
> >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> >>> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
More information about the Gluster-users