On 01/09/2016 07:42 AM, Krutika Dhananjay wrote:> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From: *"Ravishankar N" <ravishankar at redhat.com> > *To: *"Kyle Harris" <kyle.harris98 at gmail.com>, > gluster-users at gluster.org > *Sent: *Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:06:04 AM > *Subject: *Re: [Gluster-users] High I/O And Processor Utilization > > On 01/09/2016 01:44 AM, Kyle Harris wrote: > > It?s been a while since I last ran GlusterFS so I thought I > might give it another try here at home in my lab. I am using > the 3.7 branch on 2 systems with a 3^rd being an arbiter > node. Much like the last time I tried GlusterFS, I keep > running into issues with the glusterfsd process eating up so > many resources that the systems sometimes become all but > unusable. A quick Google search tells me I am not the only > one to run into this issue but I have yet to find a cure. The > last time I ran GlusterFS, it was to host web sites and I just > chalked the problem up to a large number of small files. This > time, I am using it to host VM?s and there are only 7 of them > and while they are running, they are not doing anything else. > > > The performance improvements for self-heal are still a > (stalled_at_the_moment)-work-in-progress. But for VM use cases, > you can turn on sharding [1], which will drastically reduce data > self-heal time. Why don't you give it a spin on your lab setup > and let us know how it goes? You might have to create the VMs > again though since only the files that are created after enabling > the feature will be sharded. > > -Ravi > > [1] http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/ > > > Kyle, > I would recommend you to use glusterfs-3.7.6 if you intend to try > sharding, because it contains some crucial bug fixes. >If you're trying arbiter, it would be good if you can compile the 3.7 branch and use it since it has an important fix (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12479/) that will only make it to glusterfs-3.7.7. That way you'd get this fix and the sharding ones too right away.> -Krutika > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160109/6ba7b6fe/attachment.html>
I can make the change to sharding and then export/import the VMs to give it a try. So just to be clear, I am using v3.7.6-1. Is that sufficient? I would rather not have to compile from source and would probably wait for the next rpms if that is needed. Also, given the output below. what would you recommend I use for the shard block size and furthermore, how do you determine this? -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 53G Jan 9 09:34 03070877-9cf4-4d55-a66c-fbd3538eedb9.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1M Jan 8 12:27 0b16f938-e859-41e3-bb33-fefba749a578.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.6G Jan 7 16:39 3d77b504-3109-4c34-a803-e9236e35d8bf.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 497M Jan 7 17:27 715ddb6c-67af-4047-9fa0-728019b49d63.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 341M Jan 7 16:17 72a33878-59f7-4f6e-b3e1-e137aeb19ced.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 7b7c8d8a-d223-4a47-bd35-8d72ee6927b9.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8.1M Dec 28 11:07 8b49029c-7e55-4569-bb73-88c3360d6a0c.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.2G Jan 8 12:25 8c524ed9-e382-40cd-9361-60c23a2c1ae2.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.2G Jan 9 09:34 930196aa-0b85-4482-97ab-3d05e9928884.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.0G Jan 8 12:27 940ee016-8288-4369-9fb8-9c64cb3af256.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12G Jan 9 09:34 b0cdf43c-7e6b-44bf-ab2d-efb14e9d2156.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.8G Jan 7 16:39 b803f735-cf7f-4568-be83-aedd746f6cec.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 be18622b-042a-48cb-ab94-51541ffe24eb.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.6G Jan 9 09:34 c2645723-efd9-474b-8cce-fe07ac9fbba9.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 d2873b74-f6be-43a9-bdf1-276761e3e228.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.4G Jan 7 17:27 db881623-490d-4fd8-8f12-9c82eea3c53c.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1M Jan 8 12:33 eb21c443-6381-4a25-ac7c-f53a82289f10.vhd -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13G Jan 7 16:39 f6b9cfba-09ba-478d-b8e0-543dd631e275.vhd Thanks again. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com> wrote:> On 01/09/2016 07:42 AM, Krutika Dhananjay wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Ravishankar N" <ravishankar at redhat.com> <ravishankar at redhat.com> > *To: *"Kyle Harris" <kyle.harris98 at gmail.com> <kyle.harris98 at gmail.com>, > gluster-users at gluster.org > *Sent: *Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:06:04 AM > *Subject: *Re: [Gluster-users] High I/O And Processor Utilization > > On 01/09/2016 01:44 AM, Kyle Harris wrote: > > It?s been a while since I last ran GlusterFS so I thought I might give it > another try here at home in my lab. I am using the 3.7 branch on 2 systems > with a 3rd being an arbiter node. Much like the last time I tried > GlusterFS, I keep running into issues with the glusterfsd process eating up > so many resources that the systems sometimes become all but unusable. A > quick Google search tells me I am not the only one to run into this issue > but I have yet to find a cure. The last time I ran GlusterFS, it was to > host web sites and I just chalked the problem up to a large number of small > files. This time, I am using it to host VM?s and there are only 7 of them > and while they are running, they are not doing anything else. > > > The performance improvements for self-heal are still a > (stalled_at_the_moment)-work-in-progress. But for VM use cases, you can > turn on sharding [1], which will drastically reduce data self-heal time. > Why don't you give it a spin on your lab setup and let us know how it goes? > You might have to create the VMs again though since only the files that are > created after enabling the feature will be sharded. > > -Ravi > > [1] http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/ > > > Kyle, > I would recommend you to use glusterfs-3.7.6 if you intend to try > sharding, because it contains some crucial bug fixes. > > > If you're trying arbiter, it would be good if you can compile the 3.7 > branch and use it since it has an important fix ( > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12479/) that will only make it to > glusterfs-3.7.7. That way you'd get this fix and the sharding ones too > right away. > > -Krutika > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing listGluster-users at gluster.orghttp://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160109/3f78d8a2/attachment.html>
Lindsay Mathieson
2016-Jan-09 23:14 UTC
[Gluster-users] High I/O And Processor Utilization
On 9/01/2016 12:34 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:> If you're trying arbiter, it would be good if you can compile the 3.7 > branch and use it since it has an important fix > (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12479/) that will only make it to > glusterfs-3.7.7. That way you'd get this fix and the sharding ones too > right away.is 3.7.7 far off? -- Lindsay Mathieson