[Gluster-users] gluster stripe

Nick Birkett nick at streamline-computing.com
Tue Jun 29 09:13:13 UTC 2010

Jeff Darcy wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 11:23 AM, Nick Birkett wrote:
>> Some questions regarding the working of glusterfs striped over multiple 
>> servers (glusterfs 3.0.4)
>> (1)
>> I notice that when writing files I seem to get a file of (approximately) 
>> the same size on each file server: eg using /tmp (ext3)
>> filesystem on each of 8 servers:
>> comp00: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208066560 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp01: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208197632 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp02: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208328704 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp03: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208459776 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp04: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208590848 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp05: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208721920 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp06: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208852992 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> comp07: -rw-r----- 1 sccomp users 4208984064 Jun 28 16:13 /tmp/BIG0
>> This corresponds to an 4Gbyte file BIG0 on the glusterfs filesystem.
>> I was expecting 0.5Gbyte file on each server.
> What you're seeing is the effect of your local filesystem storing sparse
> files efficiently.  When you do "ls -l" what you see is not the number
> of bytes used but the offset one beyond the last byte written.  Since
> you're doing an eight-way stripe, seven out of eight blocks within each
> copy of the file will not be written and that fact will be properly
> noted by the local filesystem.  If you use "du" instead of "ls" you
> should see the expected result.
Thanks - that makes sense.
>> (2)
>> When running IOZONE benchmark with this setup I get a very poor write 
>> performance
>> ( this would be expected if the file is being written to each server). 
>> The read performance is
>> as expected.
>> eg  115Mbyte/s write
>>       600Mbytes/s read.
> Are you sure you're getting uncached read numbers?  Also, what kind of
> network are you using, and what were the exact arguments you used for
> iozone?  These numbers might be expected, or they might be anomalous,
> but it's hard to tell without that info.
Im using IOZONE. Each server has 16Gbytes mem and I'm running 32Gbyte 
files with iozone.
The Glusterfs file system is 133Gbytes in total. So yes it could be 
cache effect since the
files are divided by 8 on a stripe. The local storage on each server is 
just a single local disk
and quite slow (100Mbytes/s read/write).
The network is DDR Infiniband so a bit overkill for the slow disks.

> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an addressee or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this e-mail or any information contained in the message.
If you have received this material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
Streamline Computing is a a company registered in England and Wales No: 03913912
Registered Address: The Innovation Centre, Warwick Technology Park, Gallows Hill, Warwick, CV34 6UW, United Kingdom

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list