[Gluster-users] poor performance

Jaco Kroon jaco at uls.co.za
Wed Dec 14 14:16:54 UTC 2022

Hi Peter,

Yes, we could.  but with ~1000 vhosts that gets extremely cumbersome to 
maintain and get clients to be able to manage their own stuff.  
Essentially except if the htdocs/ folder is on a single filesystem we're 
going to need to get involved with each and every update, which isn't 
feasible.  Then I'd rather partition the vhosts such that half runs on 
one server and the other half on the other server and risk downtime.

Our experience indicates that the slow part is in fact not the execution 
of the php code but for php to locate the files.  It tries a bunch of 
folders with stat() and/or open() and gets the ordering wrong, resulting 
numerous ENOENT errors before hitting the right locations, after which 
it actually does quite well.  On code I wrote which does NOT suffer this 
problem quite as badly as wordpress we find that from a local filesystem 
we get 200ms on full processing (idle system, nvme physical disk, 
although I doubt this matters since the fs layer should have most of 
this cached in RAM anyway) vs 300ms on top of glusterfs.  The bricks 
barely ever goes to disk (fs layer caching) according to the system 
stats we gathered.

How does big hosting entities like wordpress.org (iirc) deal with this?  
Because honestly, I doubt they do single-server setups. Then again, I 
reckon that if you ONLY host wordpress (based on experience) it's 
possible to have a single master copy of wordpress on each server, with 
a lsync'ed themes/ folder for each vhost and a shared (glusterfs) 
uploads folder.  Enters things like wordfence that insists on being able 
to write to alternative locations.

Anyway, barring using glusterfs we can certainly come up with solutions, 
which may even include having *some* sites run on the shared setup, and 
others on single-host, possibly with lsync keeping a "semi hot standby" 
up to date with something like lsync.  That does get complex though.

Our ideal solution remains a fairly performant clustered filesystem such 
as glusterfs (with which we have a lot of experience, including using it 
for large email clusters where it's performance is excellent, but I 
would have LOVED inotify support).  With nl-cache the performance is 
adequate, however, the cache-invalidation doesn't seem to function 
properly.  Which I believe can be solved, either by fixing settings, or 
by fixing code bugs.  Basically whenver a file is modified or a new file 
is created, clients should be alerted in order to invalidate cache. 
Since this cluster is mostly-read, some write, and there is only two 
clients, this should be perfectly manageable, and there seems to be 
hints of this in the gluster volume options already:

# gluster volume get volname all | grep invalid
performance.quick-read-cache-invalidation false (DEFAULT)
performance.ctime-invalidation           false (DEFAULT)
performance.cache-invalidation on
performance.global-cache-invalidation    true (DEFAULT)
features.cache-invalidation on
features.cache-invalidation-timeout 600

Kind Regards,

On 2022/12/14 14:56, Péter Károly JUHÁSZ wrote:

> We did this with WordPress too. It uses a tons of static files, 
> executing them is the slow part. You can rsync them and use the upload 
> dir from glusterfs.
> Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> 于 2022年12月14日周三 13:20写道:
>     Hi,
>     The problem is files generated by wordpress, and uploads etc ...
>     so copying them to frontend hosts whilst making perfect sense
>     assumes I have control over the code to not write to the local
>     front-end, else we could have relied on something like lsync.
>     As it stands, performance is acceptable with nl-cache enabled, but
>     the fact that we get those ENOENT errors are highly problematic.
>     Kind Regards,
>     Jaco Kroon
>     n 2022/12/14 14:04, Péter Károly JUHÁSZ wrote:
>>     When we used glusterfs for websites, we copied the web dir from
>>     gluster to local on frontend boots, then served it from there.
>>     Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> 于 2022年12月14日周三 12:49写道:
>>         Hi All,
>>         We've got a glusterfs cluster that houses some php web sites.
>>         This is generally considered a bad idea and we can see why.
>>         With performance.nl-cache on it actually turns out to be very
>>         reasonable, however, with this turned of performance is
>>         roughly 5x
>>         worse.  meaning a request that would take sub 500ms now takes
>>         2500ms.
>>         In other cases we see far, far worse cases, eg, with nl-cache
>>         takes
>>         ~1500ms, without takes ~30s (20x worse).
>>         So why not use nl-cache?  Well, it results in readdir
>>         reporting files
>>         which then fails to open with ENOENT.  The cache also never
>>         clears even
>>         though the configuration says nl-cache entries should only be
>>         cached for
>>         60s.  Even for "ls -lah" in affected folders you'll notice
>>         ???? mark
>>         entries for attributes on files.  If this recovers in a
>>         reasonable time
>>         (say, a few seconds, sure).
>>         # gluster volume info
>>         Type: Replicate
>>         Volume ID: cbe08331-8b83-41ac-b56d-88ef30c0f5c7
>>         Status: Started
>>         Snapshot Count: 0
>>         Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2
>>         Transport-type: tcp
>>         Options Reconfigured:
>>         performance.nl-cache: on
>>         cluster.readdir-optimize: on
>>         config.client-threads: 2
>>         config.brick-threads: 4
>>         config.global-threading: on
>>         performance.iot-pass-through: on
>>         storage.fips-mode-rchecksum: on
>>         cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable
>>         cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full
>>         cluster.locking-scheme: granular
>>         client.event-threads: 2
>>         server.event-threads: 2
>>         transport.address-family: inet
>>         nfs.disable: on
>>         cluster.metadata-self-heal: off
>>         cluster.entry-self-heal: off
>>         cluster.data-self-heal: off
>>         cluster.self-heal-daemon: on
>>         server.allow-insecure: on
>>         features.ctime: off
>>         performance.io-cache: on
>>         performance.cache-invalidation: on
>>         features.cache-invalidation: on
>>         performance.qr-cache-timeout: 600
>>         features.cache-invalidation-timeout: 600
>>         performance.io-cache-size: 128MB
>>         performance.cache-size: 128MB
>>         Are there any other recommendations short of abandon all hope of
>>         redundancy and to revert to a single-server setup (for the
>>         web code at
>>         least).  Currently the cost of the redundancy seems to
>>         outweigh the benefit.
>>         Glusterfs version 10.2.  With patch for --inode-table-size,
>>         mounts
>>         happen with:
>>         /usr/sbin/glusterfs --acl --reader-thread-count=2
>>         --lru-limit=524288
>>         --inode-table-size=524288 --invalidate-limit=16
>>         --background-qlen=32
>>         --fuse-mountopts=nodev,nosuid,noexec,noatime --process-name fuse
>>         --volfile-server= --volfile-id=gv_home
>>         --fuse-mountopts=nodev,nosuid,noexec,noatime /home
>>         Kind Regards,
>>         Jaco
>>         ________
>>         Community Meeting Calendar:
>>         Schedule -
>>         Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
>>         Bridge: https://meet.google.com/cpu-eiue-hvk
>>         Gluster-users mailing list
>>         Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>         https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20221214/4e9b2fcb/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list