[Gluster-users] Gluster 3.2 for lots of small files

[nuaa_liuben]

thanks, Mohit.
yes, I run "dd" on what you said.
what's the max known ops of gluster?
I will try with your advice, more threads and clients.


>From:  Mohit Anchlia 
>Send Time:  2011-05-18  12:25:45 
>TO: nuaa_liuben 
>CC:  gluster-users 
>Subject: Re: Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster 3.2 for lots of small files 
> 
single threaded testing will always limit your ability to get any
higher throughput. Can you try multiple threads of say 10 from one
client and add/remove as you see fit?
How did you arrive at 30MB/s throughput requirement?? Reason I ask is
that in most cases it's not well thought through and you try to test
way way more than what's required. Do you get 5000 operations/sec,
with 6k file and 30MB/s this is what you would see. If that's the case
I don't think gluster will scale unless you add more nodes and use
lots of clients to test.
Where did you run "dd"? On gluster client mount?
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:24 PM, nuaa_liuben <nuaa_liuben at sina.com> wrote:
> Avg. files size is between 2 ~ 6KB, both text and binary files.
> 1) about 30 MB/s for singel client, this can be realized?
> 2) dd with 4KB can get about 30 - 40MB/s
> 3) multiple clients can near linearly increase performance
> 4) only use single thread for testing
>
> BR,
> liuben
>
>>From:  Mohit Anchlia
>>Send Time:  2011-05-18  09:54:45
>>TO: nuaa_liuben
>>CC:  gluster-users
>>Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster 3.2 for lots of small files
>>
> You will find difficult to tune when using small files. But what you
> are seeing is really low. Is your average file size 10k? Are these
> text files?
> 1) of all what's your throughput requirements??
> 2) try running "dd" tests with oflag/iflag=direct
> 3) run multiple clients from separate hosts and see if you add a
> client does it linearly increase the performance.
> 4) when using small files increasing number of parallel threads from
> same client will not increase performance. lower the threads and see
> if that helps.
> Post results.
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, nuaa_liuben <nuaa_liuben at sina.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am testing gluster 3.2 for LOSF (lots of small files) scenario recently,
>> with iozne and postmark benchmark tools. And the results show that LOSF
>> performance is really bad, random read/write rate is just only about 2 ~
>> 4MB/s. I tried RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, and it's the same result. And create
>> ops with postmark is 100 ~ 400 per second.
>>
>> I deployed 4 bricks servers: Dell R510,  4 1TB SATA disks, 1 GiE NIC, 8GB
>> Mem, and test machine is also R510 with 2 SAS disks and 16GB memory.
>>
>> Any good ideas on gluster3.2 tunning for LOSF?
>> Why dbd translator is removed from gluster 3.2?
>> thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>> BR,
>> liuben
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110518/e4fa8cf3/attachment.html>