[Gluster-users] FW: Performance with Gluster+Fuse is 60x slower then Gluster+NFS ?
Stephan von Krawczynski
skraw at ithnet.com
Thu Feb 18 00:47:12 UTC 2016
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:14:59 +1000
Dan Mons <dmons at cuttingedge.com.au> wrote:
> Without knowing the details, I'm putting my money on cache.
>
> Choosing how to mount Gluster is workload dependent. If you're doing
> a lot of small files with single threaded writes, I suggest NFS. Your
> client's nfscache will dramatically improve performance from the
> end-user's point of view.
>
> If you're doing heavy multi-threaded reads and writes, and you have
> very good bandwidth from your client (e.g.: 10GbE) FUSE+GlusterFS is
> better, as it allows your client to talk to all Gluster nodes.
> [...]
Dan, forgive my jump in this matter which is obvious to everyone using
glusterfs for years: fuse+glusterfs is simply sh*t talking of performance.
There is absolutely nobody whose setup wouldn't be at least two (to several
hundred) times faster using simple NFS. So Stefans numbers are no surprise.
I really cannot believe you are trying to argue for fuse. It is completely
clear that fuse is only used because of the incompetence to write a
kernel-space driver (and this was said years ago by the people who originally
wrote the whole lot). You probably can find this answer to my question in the
archives of this (or the devel) list years back. And because of this I pretty
much stopped writing here, I mean you cannot blame someone for not being
skilled enough to produce the right code in a GPL situation.
The basic concept is good, the implementation is just a mess. And that's it.
Regards,
Stephan
> If you are using FUSE+GlusterFS, on the gluster nodes themselves,
> experiment with the "performance.write-behind-window-size" and
> "performance.cache-size" options. Note that these will affect the
> cache used by the clients, so don't set them so high as to exhaust the
> RAM of any client connecting (or, for low-memory clients, use NFS
> instead).
>
> Gluster ships with conservative defaults for cache, which is a good
> thing. It's up to the user to tweak for their optimal needs.
>
> There's no right or wrong answer here. Experiment with NFS and
> various cache allocations with FUSE+GlusterFS, and see how you go.
> And again, consider your workloads, and whether or not they're taking
> full advantage of the FUSE client's ability to deal with highly
> parallel workloads.
>
> -Dan
> ----------------
> Dan Mons - VFX Sysadmin
> Cutting Edge
> http://cuttingedge.com.au
>
>
> On 18 February 2016 at 08:56, Stefan Jakobs <stefan at localside.net> wrote:
> > Van Renterghem Stijn:
> >> Interval2
> >> Block Size: 1b+ 16b+ 32b+
> >> No. of Reads: 0 0
> >> 0 No. of Writes: 342 25
> >> 575
> >>
> >> Block Size: 64b+ 128b+
> >> 256b+ No. of Reads: 0 0
> >> 0 No. of Writes: 143 898
> >> 118
> >>
> >> Block Size: 512b+ 1024b+
> >> 2048b+ No. of Reads: 1 4
> >> 11 No. of Writes: 82 0
> >> 0
> >>
> >> Block Size: 4096b+ 8192b+
> >> 16384b+ No. of Reads: 11 31
> >> 39 No. of Writes: 0 0
> >> 0
> >>
> >> Block Size: 32768b+ 65536b+
> >> 131072b+ No. of Reads: 59 148
> >> 555 No. of Writes: 0 0
> >> 0
> >>
> >> %-latency Avg-latency Min-Latency Max-Latency No. of calls
> >> Fop --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
> >> ---- 0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 1
> >> FORGET 0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 201
> >> RELEASE 0.00 0.00 us 0.00 us 0.00 us 54549
> >> RELEASEDIR 0.00 47.00 us 47.00 us 47.00 us 1
> >> REMOVEXATTR 0.00 94.00 us 74.00 us 114.00 us 2
> >> XATTROP 0.00 191.00 us 191.00 us 191.00 us 1
> >> TRUNCATE 0.00 53.50 us 35.00 us 74.00 us 4
> >> STATFS 0.00 79.67 us 70.00 us 91.00 us 3
> >> RENAME 0.00 37.33 us 27.00 us 68.00 us 15
> >> INODELK 0.00 190.67 us 116.00 us 252.00 us 3
> >> UNLINK 0.00 28.83 us 8.00 us 99.00 us 30
> >> ENTRYLK 0.00 146.33 us 117.00 us 188.00 us 6
> >> CREATE 0.00 37.63 us 12.00 us 73.00 us 84
> >> READDIR 0.00 23.75 us 8.00 us 75.00 us 198
> >> FLUSH 0.00 65.33 us 42.00 us 141.00 us 204
> >> OPEN 0.01 45.78 us 11.00 us 191.00 us 944
> >> FINODELK 0.01 80.34 us 31.00 us 211.00 us 859
> >> READ 0.02 96.74 us 50.00 us 188.00 us 944
> >> FXATTROP 0.02 55.84 us 24.00 us 140.00 us 1707
> >> FSTAT 0.02 52.89 us 21.00 us 175.00 us 2183
> >> WRITE 0.02 59.69 us 11.00 us 235.00 us 2312
> >> GETXATTR 0.03 51.18 us 8.00 us 142.00 us 3091
> >> STAT 0.46 48.66 us 1.00 us 179.00 us 54549
> >> OPENDIR 1.13 135.93 us 18.00 us 16362.00 us 48124
> >> READDIRP 98.29 70.46 us 16.00 us 2903.00 us 8104385
> >> LOOKUP
> >>
> >> Duration: 7560 seconds
> >> Data Read: 91208567 bytes = 91MB
> >> Data Written: 292007 bytes = 0,292MB
> >
> > How did you collect these statistics?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Stefan
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list