[Gluster-users] No performance difference using libgfapi?

[Josh Boon]

Hey David, 

Can you provide the qemu command to run each of them? What's your gluster/disk/network layout look like? 

Depending on your disk and network setup you may be hitting a bottleneck there that would prevent gfapi from performing at capacity. Lots of options here that could impact things. 


----- Original Message -----

From: "Dave Christianson" <davidchristianson3 at gmail.com> 
To: gluster-users at gluster.org 
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:05:51 AM 
Subject: [Gluster-users] No performance difference using libgfapi? 

Good Morning, 

In my earlier experience invoking a VM using qemu/libgfapi, I reported that it was noticeably faster than the same VM invoked from libvirt using a FUSE mount; however, this was erroneous as the qemu/libgfapi-invoked image was created using 2x the RAM and cpu's... 

So, invoking the image using both methods using consistent specs of 2GB RAM and 2 cpu's, I attempted to check drive performance using the following commands: 

(For regular FUSE mount I have the gluster volume mounted at /var/lib/libvirt/images.) 

(For libgfapi I specify -disk file=gluster://gfs-00/gfsvol/tester1/img.) 

Using libvirt/FUSE mount: 
[root at tester1 ~]# hdparm -Tt /dev/vda1 
/dev/vda1: 
Timing cached reads: 11346 MB in 2.00 seconds = 5681.63 MB/sec 
Timing buffered disk reads: 36 MB in 3.05 seconds = 11.80 MB/sec 
[root at tester1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/output bs=8k count=10k; rm -f /tmp/output 
10240+0 records in 
10240+0 records out 
41943040 bytes (42MB) copied, 0.0646241 s, 649 MB/sec 

Using qemu/libgfapi: 
[root at tester1 ~]# hdparm -Tt /dev/vda1 
/dev/vda1: 
Timing cached reads: 11998 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6008.57 MB/sec 
Timing buffered disk reads: 36 MB in 3.03 seconds = 11.89 MB/sec 
[root at tester1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/output bs=8k count=10k; rm -f /tmp/output 
10240+0 records in 
10240+0 records out 
41943040 bytes (42MB) copied, 0.0621412 s, 675 MB/sec 

Should I be seeing a bigger difference, or am I doing something wrong? 

I'm also curious whether people have found that the performance difference is greater as the size of the gluster cluster scales up. 

Thanks, 
David 


_______________________________________________ 
Gluster-users mailing list 
Gluster-users at gluster.org 
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20140403/98b84f66/attachment.html>