[Gluster-users] gluster local vs local = gluster x4 slower

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:59:35 -0600 (CST)
"Tejas N. Bhise" <tejas at gluster.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, if you want to do stuff only on one machine, 
> why do you want to use a distributed, multi node, clustered, 
> file system ?

Because what he does is a very good way to show the overhead produced only by
glusterfs and nothing else (i.e. no network involved).
A pretty relevant test scenario I would say.

--
Regards,
Stephan


> 
> Am I missing something here ?
> 
> Regards,
> Tejas.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremy Enos" <jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
> To: gluster-users at gluster.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:07:06 PM GMT +05:30 Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi
> Subject: [Gluster-users] gluster local vs local = gluster x4 slower
> 
> This test is pretty easy to replicate anywhere- only takes 1 disk, one 
> machine, one tarball.  Untarring to local disk directly vs thru gluster 
> is about 4.5x faster.  At first I thought this may be due to a slow host 
> (Opteron 2.4ghz).  But it's not- same configuration, on a much faster 
> machine (dual 3.33ghz Xeon) yields the performance below.
> 
> ####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK THRU GLUSTER####
> [root at ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf 
> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
> 
> real    0m41.290s
> user    0m14.246s
> sys     0m2.957s
> 
> ####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK (BYPASS GLUSTER)####
> [root at ac33 jenos]# cd /export/jenos/
> [root at ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf 
> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
> 
> real    0m8.983s
> user    0m6.857s
> sys     0m1.844s
> 
> ####THESE ARE TEST FILE DETAILS####
> [root at ac33 jenos]# tar tzvf 
> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz  |wc -l
> 109
> [root at ac33 jenos]# ls -l 
> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jenos ac 804385203 2010-02-07 06:32 
> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz
> [root at ac33 jenos]#
> 
> These are the relevant performance options I'm using in my .vol file:
> 
> #------------Performance Options-------------------
> 
> volume readahead
>    type performance/read-ahead
>    option page-count 4           # 2 is default option
>    option force-atime-update off # default is off
>    subvolumes ghome
> end-volume
> 
> volume writebehind
>    type performance/write-behind
>    option cache-size 1MB
>    subvolumes readahead
> end-volume
> 
> volume cache
>    type performance/io-cache
>    option cache-size 1GB
>    subvolumes writebehind
> end-volume
> 
> What can I do to improve gluster's performance?
> 
>      Jeremy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>