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 & ing?nieur syst?me > UPR 9080 - CNRS - Laboratoire de Biochimie Th?orique > 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 ? 10:09, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkarampu at redhat.com > a > ?crit : > > 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 & ing?nieur syst?me > CNRS - UPR 9080 - Laboratoire de Biochimie Th?orique > 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
Geoffrey Letessier
2015-Jun-02 21:45 UTC
[Gluster-users] GlusterFS 3.7 - slow/poor performances
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 & ing?nieur syst?me CNRS - UPR 9080 - Laboratoire de Biochimie Th?orique 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 ? 21:53, Ben Turner <bturner at redhat.com> a ?crit :> 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 & ing?nieur syst?me >> UPR 9080 - CNRS - Laboratoire de Biochimie Th?orique >> 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 ? 10:09, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkarampu at redhat.com > a >> ?crit : >> >> 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 & ing?nieur syst?me >> CNRS - UPR 9080 - Laboratoire de Biochimie Th?orique >> 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>