bob at computerisms.ca
Wed Aug 5 01:53:34 UTC 2020
thanks again for sticking with me on this.
> Hm... OK. I guess you can try 7.7 whenever it's possible.
>> Perhaps I am not understanding it correctly. I tried these suggestions
>> before and it got worse, not better. so I have been operating under
>> assumption that maybe these guidelines are not appropriate for newer
> Actually, the settings are not changed much, so they should work for you.
Okay, then maybe I am doing something incorrectly, or not understanding
some fundamental piece of things that I should be.
>>>> Interestingly, mostly because it is not something I have ever
>>>> experienced before, software interrupts sit between 1 and 5 on each
>>>> core, but the last core is usually sitting around 20. Have never
>>>> encountered a high load average where the si number was ever
>>>> significant. I have googled the crap out of that (as well as
>>>> performance in general), there are nearly limitless posts about what
>>>> is, but have yet to see one thing to explain what to do about it.
> This is happening on all nodes ?
> I got a similar situation caused by bad NIC (si in top was way high), but the chance for bad NIC on all servers is very low.
> You can still patch OS + Firmware on your next maintenance.
Yes, but it's not to the same extreme. The other node is currently not
actually serving anything to the internet, so right now it's only
function is replicated gluster and databases. On the 2nd node there is
also one core, the first one in this case as opposed to the last one on
the main node, but it sits between 10 and 15 instead of 20 and 25, and
the remaining cores will be between 0 and 2 instead of 1 and 5.
I have no evidence of any bad hardware, and these servers were both
commissioned only within the last couple of months. But will still poke
around on this path.
>> more number of CPU cycles than needed, increasing the event thread
>> would enhance the performance of the Red Hat Storage Server." which is
>> why I had it at 8.
> Yeah, but you got only 6 cores and they are not dedicated for gluster only. I think that you need to test with lower values.
Okay, I will change these values a few times over the next couple of
hours and see what happens.
>> right now the only suggested parameter I haven't played with is the
>> performance.io-thread-count, which I currently have at 64.
> I think that as you have SSDs only, you might have some results by changing this one.
Okay, will also modify this incrementally. do you think it can go
higher? I think I got this number from a thread on this list, but I am
not really sure what would be a reasonable value for my system.
>> For what it's worth, I am running ext4 as my underlying fs and I have
>> read a few times that XFS might have been a better choice. But that is
>> not a trivial experiment to make at this time with the system in
>> production. It's one thing (and still a bad thing to be sure) to
>> semi-bork the system for an hour or two while I play with
>> configurations, but would take a day or so offline to reformat and
>> restore the data.
> XFS should bring better performance, but if the issue is not in FS -> it won't make a change...
> What I/O scheduler are you using for the SSDs (you can check via 'cat /sys/block/sdX/queue/scheduler)?
# cat /sys/block/vda/queue/scheduler
>> in the past I have tried 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32. Playing with just those
>> never noticed that any of them made any difference. Though I might
>> some different options now than I did then, so might try these again
>> throughout the day...
> Are you talking about server or client event threads (or both)?
It never occurred to me to set them to different values. so far when I
set one I set the other to the same value.
>> Thanks again for your time Strahil, if you have any more thoughts would
>> love to hear them.
> Can you check if you use 'noatime' for the bricks ? It won't bring any effect on the CPU side, but it might help with the I/O.
I checked into this, and I have nodiratime set, but not noatime. from
what I can gather, it should provide nearly the same benefit performance
wise while leaving the atime attribute on the files. Never know, I may
decide I want those at some point in the future.
> I see that your indicator for high load is loadavg, but have you actually checked how many processes are in 'R' or 'D' state ?
> Some monitoring checks can raise loadavg artificially.
occasionally a batch of processes will be in R state, and I see the D
state show up from time to time, but mostly everything is S.
> Also, are you using software mirroring (either mdadm or striped/mirrored LVs )?
No, single disk. And I opted to not put the gluster on a thinLVM, as I
don't see myself using the lvm snapshots in this scenario.
So, we just moved into a quieter time of the day, but maybe I just
stumbled onto something. I was trying to figure out if/how I could
throw more RAM at the problem. gluster docs says write behind is not a
cache unless flush-behind is on. So seems that is a way to throw ram to
it? I put performance.write-behind-window-size: 512MB and
performance.flush-behind: on and the whole system calmed down pretty
much immediately. could be just timing, though, will have to see
tomorrow during business hours whether the system stays at a reasonable
I will still test the other options you suggested tonight, though, this
is probably too good to be true.
Can't thank you enough for your input, Strahil, your help is truly
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Strahil Nikolov
>> Community Meeting Calendar:
>> Schedule -
>> Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
>> Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
More information about the Gluster-users