[Gluster-users] Gluster / KVM Filesystem Benchmarks

[Joe Topjian]

Hello,

I did a few filesystem benchmarks with Gluster (3.3) and KVM using iozone
and have compiled a spreadsheet with the results:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6GzZufzohwFZmozTFRSSHk5T0E

Just a heads up: It is an Excel spreadsheet.

All of the details that were used to generate the results are described in
the spreadsheet. Of most interest would be the second tab titled "Gluster".
The results that do not have "vm" in the description were iozone procs
running directly on a mounted replicated Gluster volume (2 bricks). The
"vm" results are iozone procs running in KVM virtual machines stored in
qcow2 files.

The first tab, General, is just some simple non-Gluster benchmarks that I
ran for comparison.

The third tab, Gluster old, was me doing iozone benchmarks on files with
sizes ranging from 8mb to 512mb. I noticed that there was very little
difference in the results so I decided to work with only 128mb and 256mb
sized files.

If you do not have access to Excel or something compatible, you can still
view most of the information in the Google Doc. Here is a jpeg image of the
main graph that was generated:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6GzZufzohwFWGtFS3I5UEllTkU

Questions I have:

* The "optimized settings" that I used were pulled from a Gluster
Performance Tuning presentation. It doesn't look like the settings did very
much in terms of optimization. Can someone comment on these settings? Are
there better settings to use?

* I'm a bit confused at how the KVM / qcow2 reads are much higher than the
reads directly on the Gluster volume. Any idea why that is?

* I ran all tests with the cache-io translator on and off. Like the
"optimized settings", it wasn't of much use. Did I use this incorrectly?

* The reason I did all tests with 128mb and 256mb sized files was to
highlight the very bizarre trait where certain increments (16, 64, 256)
gave very poor results while increments such as 8, 32, and 128 had good
results. Any idea why that is?

* Can anyone comment on if these results are of any use? Or are the stats I
collect and the way I collected them incorrect?

Please let me know if anyone has any questions or needs anything clarified.

Thanks,
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120904/27c95465/attachment.html>