[Gluster-users] Gluster 2.0.3 + Apache on CentOS5 performance issue

Fri Jul 31 03:45:15 UTC 2009

Could you let me know when will this be (estimately). I can wait until 2.0.5
and test it out again.

2009/7/30 Liam Slusser <lslusser at gmail.com>

> You might want to wait until 2.0.5 as there is a ton of bug fixes to
> booster in that release.
>
> Either way please let us know how it goes.
>
> ls
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul <somsaks at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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>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?
>>
>> regards,
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Liam Slusser" < <lslusser at gmail.com>lslusser at gmail.com>
>> To: "Somsak Sriprayoonsakul" < <somsaks at gmail.com>somsaks at gmail.com>
>> Cc: <gluster-users at gluster.org>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
>>  issue
>>
>> 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
>> setups
>> so to verified it could handle 4x our normal daily load and left it at
>> that.
>>  I didn't actually compare the two (although that might be cool to do
>> someday).
>> 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
>> content.
>>
>> If you would like more information on our setup id be happy to share
>> offline.  Just email me privately.
>>
>> thanks,
>> liam
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul
>> < <somsaks at gmail.com>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>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
>> number
>> >> of connections (150-200) and everything has been running smoothly.  I
>> cannot
>> >> 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>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
>> a
>> >>> 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 a
>> >>> lot of small static files using Apache while using PHP to do other
>> dynamic
>> >>> 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
>> test
>> >>> system is 11 machines of Intel Dual Core x86_64 CentOS5 with stock
>> Apache
>> >>> (prefork, since the goal is to use this with PHP), linked together
>> with
>> >>> Gigabit Ethernet. We try to compare the performance of either using
>> single
>> >>> NFS server in sync mode against using 4 Gluster nodes (distribute of 2
>> >>> replicated nodes) through Fuse. However, the transaction per second
>> (TPS)
>> >>> 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 =
>> 672.67ms
>> >>> - 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->write-behind->readahead->distribute->replicate.
>> >>> io-cache cache-size is 256MB. I used patched Fuse downloaded from
>> Gluster
>> >>> 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 on
>> >>> 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 Dual
>> >>> 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
>> about
>> >>> the same, 1000+ peak TPS with 2-400 avg. TPS. A problem arise in this
>> test
>> >>> that each Apache prefork process used more about twice more memory and
>> we
>> >>> need to lower number of httpd processes by about half.
>> >>>
>> >>> I tried disable EnableMMAP and it didn't help much. Adjusting
>> readahead,
>> >>> write behind according to GlusterOptimization page didn't help much
>> either.
>> >>>
>> >>> My question is, there seems to be bottleneck in this setup, but how
>> can I
>> >>> track this? Note that, I didn't do any other optimization other than
>> what
>> >>> said above. Are there any best practice configuration for using Apache
>> to
>> >>> serve a bunch of small static files like this around?
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Somsak
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> >>> <Gluster-users at gluster.org>Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> >>> <http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
>> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>  <Gluster-users at gluster.org>Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>  <http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>
>