[Gluster-users] Is such level of performance degradation to be expected?

Sam mygluster22 at eml.cc
Mon Jan 24 13:29:51 UTC 2022

Thanks for your response Strahil. 

> Usually synthetic benchmarks do not show anything, because gluster has to be tuned to your real workload and not to a synth.

I understand that they do not paint the real picture. But doing same benchmark between a set of file-systems on same server should be able to throw results that can be compared? 

> Also, RH recommends disks of 3-4TB each in a HW raid of 10-12 disks with a stripe size between 1M and 2M.
Next, you need to ensure that hardware alignment is properly done.

Gluster isn't interacting with the underlying RAID device here so that shouldn't matter. If the XFS layer just below gluster is giving me 3.5 GB/s random reads and writes (--rw=randrw --direct=1), why Gluster above it is struggling at 130 MB/s on the same RAID setup. That is 27 times slower.

I understand that Gluster volume may perform better when its bricks are distributed on different nodes but the fact that its performance penalty when compared to file-system its residing on it is so much high doesn't inspire much confidence. 

I may be wrong here but system settings, cache settings, raid cache etc. shouldn't have any play here as its parent file-system is performing perfectly fine with the default settings.

- Sam

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list