[Gluster-users] Performance problems

Bedis 9 bedis9 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 30 12:00:58 UTC 2010


I had the same configuration/performance.
In order to get better performance, I have configured apache as a
reverse-proxy (mem)cache on the front IP, pointing to the apache
webserver which listen on the local loop.

That way, the most accessed files are served from memory. The server
has 16G of memory ;)


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Olivier Le Cam
<Olivier.LeCam at crdp.ac-versailles.fr> wrote:
> Aurélien ROUGEMONT wrote:
>> will this be ok for a web servers farm ?
>> what dies it mean ? What is the most common bs= equivalent for a www
>> server ? Do i have to change the block size of the underlying filesystem ?
>> (by the way, i've managed to get the same results with an opensolaris
>> 2009.06 + glusterfs 3.0.3)
>> I would be glad to get some more explanations about this
>> Thank you all for taking the time to answer to my wonderings.
> I face myself to the same interrogations. In addition to the results with
> "dd" posted before, I have done some benchmarks with the "postmark" tool
> this morning, which is relatively easy to simulate webserver accesses to the
> filesystem with. I'm also a bit dubious regarding the GlusterFS performances
> in a web farm environment.
> Here are some comparaisons from the same client to both an NFS (v3) server
> and a "RAID-1" GlusterFS cluster (postmark was set with "1000 base files"
> and for "50000 transactions"):
> As GlusterFS Client, with all default translators enabled:
>        - 200 transactions per seconds
>        - data read: 642 kilobytes/s
>        - data written: 670 kilobytes/s
> As NFS Client
>        - 961 transactions per seconds
>        - data read: 3.10 megabytes/s
>        - data written: 3.24 megabytes/s
> (see details at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg4cv5kw_74ptxfqqgq)
> Important notice: the NFS server used here is in production and under a
> quite heavy load. We should expect even better results (by far) if that NFS
> server were 100% dedicated to this benchmark!
> I'm now wondering if GlusterFS is indeed a good choice for a webserver farm
> filer despite of its very interesting features in term of reliability and
> scalability.
> Like Aurélien, I'd appreciate your comments on this topic!
> Thanks in anticipation and best regards,
> --
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list