[Gluster-users] very low file creation rate with glusterfs -- result updates

Wei Dong wdong.pku at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 14:06:54 UTC 2009

By using booster, I actually avoid being root on the client side.  It 
would be perfect if the servers can also be run by regular users, even 
if that means that some features have to be deleted.  Can someone 
explain a little bit why the server side must be run by root?

I know that I should not ask for too much when the robustness of the 
current codebase is the most import issue at the time.  I just want to 
hear a story about that and maybe hack the code myself.

- Wei

Wei Dong wrote:
> I think it is fuse that causes the slowness.  I ran all experiments 
> with booster enabled and here's the new figure:  
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wdong/gluster/summary-booster.gif .  The 
> numbers are MUCH better than NFS in most cases except for the local 
> setting, which is not practically interesting.  The interesting thing 
> is that all of a sudden, the deleting rate drop by 4-10 times -- 
> though I don't really care about file deletion.
> I must say that I'm totally satisfied by the results.
> - Wei
> Wei Dong wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I complained about the low file creation rate with the glusterfs on 
>> my cluster weeks ago and Avati suggested I started with a small 
>> number of nodes.  I finally get sometime to seriously benchmark 
>> glusterfs with Bonnie++ today and the results confirms that glusterfs 
>> is indeed slow in terms of file creating.  My application is to store 
>> a large number of ~200KB image files.  I use the following bonnie++ 
>> command for evaluation (create 10K files of 200KiB each scattered 
>> under 100 directories):
>> bonnie++ -d . -s 0 -n 10:200000:200000:100
>> Since sequential I/O is not that interesting to me, I only keep the 
>> random I/O results.
>> My hardware configuration is 2xquadcore Xeon E5430 2.66GHz, 16GB 
>> memory, 4 x Seagate 1500GiB 7200RPM hard drive.  The machines are 
>> connected with gigabit ethernet.
>> I ran several GlusterFS configurations, each named as N-R-T, where N 
>> is the number of replicated volumes aggregated, R is the number of 
>> replications and T is number of server side I/O thread.  I use one 
>> machine to serve one volume so there are NxR servers and one separate 
>> client running for each experiment.  On the client side, the server 
>> volumes are first replicated and then aggregated -- even with 1-1-2 
>> configuration, the single volume is wrapped by a replicate and a 
>> distribute translator.  To show the overhead of those translators, I 
>> also run a "simple" configuration which is 1-1-2 without the extra 
>> replicate & distribute translators, and a "local" configuration which 
>> is "simple" with client & server running on the same machine.  These 
>> configurations are compared to "nfs" and "nfs-local", which is NFS 
>> with server and client on the same machine.  The GlusterFS volume 
>> file templates are attached to the email.
>> The result is at 
>> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wdong/gluster/summary.gif .  The 
>> bars/numbers shown are operations/second, so the larger the better.
>> Following are the messages shown by the figure:
>> 1.  GlusterFS is doing a exceptionally good job on deleting files, 
>> but creates and reads files much slower than both NFS.
>> 2.  At least for one node server configuration, network doesn't 
>> affects the file creation rate and does affects file read rate.
>> 3.  The extra dummy replicate & distribute translators lowers file 
>> creation rate by almost half. 4.  Replication doesn't hurt 
>> performance a lot.
>> 5.  I'm running only single-threaded benchmark, so it's hard to say 
>> about scalability, but adding more servers does helps a little bit 
>> even in single-threaded setting.
>> Note that my results are not really that different from 
>> http://gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/GlusterFS_2.0_I/O_Benchmark_Results, 
>> where the single node configuration file create rate is about 30/second.
>> I see no reason why GlusterFS has to be that slower than NFS in file 
>> creation in single node configuration.  I'm wondering if someone here 
>> can help me figure out what's wrong in my configuration or what's 
>> wrong in the GlusterFS implementation.
>> - Wei
>> Server volume:
>> volume posix
>>  type storage/posix
>>  option directory /state/partition1/wdong/gluster
>> end-volume
>> volume lock
>>  type features/locks
>>  subvolumes posix
>> end-volume
>> volume brick
>>  type performance/io-threads
>>  option thread-count 2
>>  subvolumes lock
>> end-volume
>> volume server
>>  type protocol/server
>>  option transport-type tcp
>>  option auth.addr.brick.allow 192.168.99.*
>>  option transport.socket.listen-port 6999
>>  subvolumes brick
>> end-volume
>> Client volume
>> volume brick-0-0
>>  type protocol/client
>>  option transport-type tcp
>>  option remote-host c8-0-0
>>  option remote-port 6999
>>  option remote-subvolume brick
>> end-volume
>> volume brick-0-1 ...
>> volume rep-0
>> type cluster/replicate
>> subvolumes brick-0-0 brick-0-1 ...
>> ...
>> volume union
>> type cluster/distribute
>> subvolumes rep-0 rep-1 rep-2 rep-3 rep-4 rep-5 rep-6 rep-7
>> end-volume
>> volume client
>>  type performance/write-behind
>>  option cache-size 32MB
>>  option flush-behind on
>>  subvolumes union
>> end-volume
>> For those who are interested enough to see the real configuration 
>> files, I have all the configuration files and server/client logs 
>> uploaded to http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wdong/gluster/run.tar.gz .

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list