[Gluster-users] GlusterFS 3.7 - slow/poor performances
Geoffrey Letessier
geoffrey.letessier at cnrs.fr
Tue Jun 2 21:45:16 UTC 2015
Hi Ben,
I just check my messages log files, both on client and server, and I dont find any hung task you notice on yours..
As you can read below, i dont note the performance issue in a simple DD but I think my issue is concerning a set of small files (tens of thousands nay more)…
[root at nisus test]# ddt -t 10g /mnt/test/
Writing to /mnt/test/ddt.8362 ... syncing ... done.
sleeping 10 seconds ... done.
Reading from /mnt/test/ddt.8362 ... done.
10240MiB KiB/s CPU%
Write 114770 4
Read 40675 4
for info: /mnt/test concerns the single v2 GlFS volume
[root at nisus test]# ddt -t 10g /mnt/fhgfs/
Writing to /mnt/fhgfs/ddt.8380 ... syncing ... done.
sleeping 10 seconds ... done.
Reading from /mnt/fhgfs/ddt.8380 ... done.
10240MiB KiB/s CPU%
Write 102591 1
Read 98079 2
Do you have a idea how to tune/optimize performance settings? and/or TCP settings (MTU, etc.)?
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | UNTAR | DU | FIND | TAR | RM |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| single | ~3m45s | ~43s | ~47s | ~3m10s | ~3m15s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| replicated | ~5m10s | ~59s | ~1m6s | ~1m19s | ~1m49s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| distributed | ~4m18s | ~41s | ~57s | ~2m24s | ~1m38s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| dist-repl | ~8m18s | ~1m4s | ~1m11s | ~1m24s | ~2m40s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| native FS | ~11s | ~4s | ~2s | ~56s | ~10s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| BeeGFS | ~3m43s | ~15s | ~3s | ~1m33s | ~46s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| single (v2) | ~3m6s | ~14s | ~32s | ~1m2s | ~44s |
---------------------------------------------------------------
for info:
-BeeGFS is a distributed FS (4 bricks, 2 bricks per server and 2 servers)
- single (v2): simple gluster volume with default settings
I also note I obtain the same tar/untar performance issue with FhGFS/BeeGFS but the rest (DU, FIND, RM) looks like to be OK.
Thank you very much for your reply and help.
Geoffrey
-----------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Letessier
Responsable informatique & ingénieur système
CNRS - UPR 9080 - Laboratoire de Biochimie Théorique
Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique
13, rue Pierre et Marie Curie - 75005 Paris
Tel: 01 58 41 50 93 - eMail: geoffrey.letessier at cnrs.fr
Le 2 juin 2015 à 21:53, Ben Turner <bturner at redhat.com> a écrit :
> I am seeing problems on 3.7 as well. Can you check /var/log/messages on both the clients and servers for hung tasks like:
>
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: iozone D 0000000000000001 0 21999 1 0x00000080
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: ffff880611321cc8 0000000000000082 ffff880611321c18 ffffffffa027236e
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: ffff880611321c48 ffffffffa0272c10 ffff88052bd1e040 ffff880611321c78
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: ffff88052bd1e0f0 ffff88062080c7a0 ffff880625addaf8 ffff880611321fd8
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: Call Trace:
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffffa027236e>] ? rpc_make_runnable+0x7e/0x80 [sunrpc]
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffffa0272c10>] ? rpc_execute+0x50/0xa0 [sunrpc]
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff810aaa21>] ? ktime_get_ts+0xb1/0xf0
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff811242d0>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x50
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8152a1b3>] io_schedule+0x73/0xc0
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8112430d>] sync_page+0x3d/0x50
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8152ac7f>] __wait_on_bit+0x5f/0x90
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff81124543>] wait_on_page_bit+0x73/0x80
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8109eb80>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x50
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8113a525>] ? pagevec_lookup_tag+0x25/0x40
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8112496b>] wait_on_page_writeback_range+0xfb/0x190
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff81124b38>] filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x78/0x90
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff811c07ce>] vfs_fsync_range+0x7e/0x100
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff811c08bd>] vfs_fsync+0x1d/0x20
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff811c08fe>] do_fsync+0x3e/0x60
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff811c0950>] sys_fsync+0x10/0x20
> Jun 2 15:23:14 gqac006 kernel: [<ffffffff8100b072>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> Do you see a perf problem with just a simple DD or do you need a more complex workload to hit the issue? I think I saw an issue with metadata performance that I am trying to run down, let me know if you can see the problem with simple DD reads / writes or if we need to do some sort of dir / metadata access as well.
>
> -b
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geoffrey Letessier" <geoffrey.letessier at cnrs.fr>
>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>> Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:09:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] GlusterFS 3.7 - slow/poor performances
>>
>> Hi Pranith,
>>
>> I’m sorry but I cannot bring you any comparison because comparison will be
>> distorted by the fact in my HPC cluster in production the network technology
>> is InfiniBand QDR and my volumes are quite different (brick in RAID6
>> (12x2TB), 2 bricks per server and 4 servers into my pool)
>>
>> Concerning your demand, in attachments you can find all expected results
>> hoping it can help you to solve this serious performance issue (maybe I need
>> play with glusterfs parameters?).
>>
>> Thank you very much by advance,
>> Geoffrey
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Geoffrey Letessier
>> Responsable informatique & ingénieur système
>> UPR 9080 - CNRS - Laboratoire de Biochimie Théorique
>> Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique
>> 13, rue Pierre et Marie Curie - 75005 Paris
>> Tel: 01 58 41 50 93 - eMail: geoffrey.letessier at ibpc.fr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 2 juin 2015 à 10:09, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkarampu at redhat.com > a
>> écrit :
>>
>> hi Geoffrey,
>> Since you are saying it happens on all types of volumes, lets do the
>> following:
>> 1) Create a dist-repl volume
>> 2) Set the options etc you need.
>> 3) enable gluster volume profile using "gluster volume profile <volname>
>> start"
>> 4) run the work load
>> 5) give output of "gluster volume profile <volname> info"
>>
>> Repeat the steps above on new and old version you are comparing this with.
>> That should give us insight into what could be causing the slowness.
>>
>> Pranith
>> On 06/02/2015 03:22 AM, Geoffrey Letessier wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have a crash test cluster where i’ve tested the new version of GlusterFS
>> (v3.7) before upgrading my HPC cluster in production.
>> But… all my tests show me very very low performances.
>>
>> For my benches, as you can read below, I do some actions (untar, du, find,
>> tar, rm) with linux kernel sources, dropping cache, each on distributed,
>> replicated, distributed-replicated, single (single brick) volumes and the
>> native FS of one brick.
>>
>> # time (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; tar xJf ~/linux-4.1-rc5.tar.xz;
>> sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
>> # time (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; du -sh linux-4.1-rc5/; echo 3 >
>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
>> # time (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; find linux-4.1-rc5/|wc -l; echo 3
>>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
>> # time (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; tar czf linux-4.1-rc5.tgz
>> linux-4.1-rc5/; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
>> # time (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; rm -rf linux-4.1-rc5.tgz
>> linux-4.1-rc5/; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
>>
>> And here are the process times:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | | UNTAR | DU | FIND | TAR | RM |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | single | ~3m45s | ~43s | ~47s | ~3m10s | ~3m15s |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | replicated | ~5m10s | ~59s | ~1m6s | ~1m19s | ~1m49s |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | distributed | ~4m18s | ~41s | ~57s | ~2m24s | ~1m38s |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | dist-repl | ~8m18s | ~1m4s | ~1m11s | ~1m24s | ~2m40s |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> | native FS | ~11s | ~4s | ~2s | ~56s | ~10s |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I get the same results, whether with default configurations with custom
>> configurations.
>>
>> if I look at the side of the ifstat command, I can note my IO write processes
>> never exceed 3MBs...
>>
>> EXT4 native FS seems to be faster (roughly 15-20% but no more) than XFS one
>>
>> My [test] storage cluster config is composed by 2 identical servers (biCPU
>> Intel Xeon X5355, 8GB of RAM, 2x2TB HDD (no-RAID) and Gb ethernet)
>>
>> My volume settings:
>> single: 1server 1 brick
>> replicated: 2 servers 1 brick each
>> distributed: 2 servers 2 bricks each
>> dist-repl: 2 bricks in the same server and replica 2
>>
>> All seems to be OK in gluster status command line.
>>
>> Do you have an idea why I obtain so bad results?
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Geoffrey
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Geoffrey Letessier
>>
>> Responsable informatique & ingénieur système
>> CNRS - UPR 9080 - Laboratoire de Biochimie Théorique
>> Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique
>> 13, rue Pierre et Marie Curie - 75005 Paris
>> Tel: 01 58 41 50 93 - eMail: geoffrey.letessier at cnrs.fr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150602/e044916b/attachment.html>
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list