Pranith,
Thanks for checking this. Though the time taken to run was 18
seconds if you look at the time consumed in user land as well as kernel land
for executing the command then it is evident that fuse took almost half the time
as libgfapi. Also from the collected profiles it is evident that the average
latency for the write command is less for fuse than for libgfapi. Are there any
recommendations for I/O through libgfapi for disperse volumes. Is there any way
to avoid the extra memcpy's that are being made when performing I/O through
libgfapi.
Thanks and Regards,
Ram
-----Original Message-----
From: Pranith Kumar Karampuri [mailto:pkarampu at redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:57 PM
To: Ankireddypalle Reddy; Vijay Bellur; gluster-users at gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] libgfapi access
On 12/10/2015 07:15 PM, Ankireddypalle Reddy wrote:> Hi,
> Please let me know in case you need any more details. Even for only
write operations fuse seems to outperform libgfapi. Is it because of disperse
volumes?. Also I noticed a lot of data loss in case I use libgfapi asyn I/O for
disperse volumes.
Fuse and gfapi seem to take same amount of time to complete the run, i.e. 18
seconds. Could you let me know what you mean by fuse outperforming gfapi?
Pranith>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Ram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ankireddypalle Reddy
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 5:01 PM
> To: 'Pranith Kumar Karampuri'; Vijay Bellur; gluster-users at
gluster.org
> Subject: RE: [Gluster-users] libgfapi access
>
> Hi,
> I upgraded my setup to gluster 3.7.3. I tested writes by
performing writes through fuse and through libgfapi. Attached are the profiles
generated from fuse and libgfapi. The test programs essentially writes 10000
blocks each of 128K.
>
> [root at santest2 Base]# time ./GlusterFuseTest /ws/glus 131072 10000 Mount
path: /ws/glus Block size: 131072 Num of blocks: 10000 Will perform write test
on mount path : /ws/glus Succesfully created file /ws/glus/1449697583.glfs
Successfully filled file /ws/glus/1449697583.glfs Write test succeeded Write
test succeeded.
>
> real 0m18.722s
> user 0m3.913s
> sys 0m1.126s
>
> [root at santest2 Base]# time ./GlusterLibGFApiTest dispersevol santest2
> 24007 131072 10000 Host name: santest2
> Volume: dispersevol
> Port: 24007
> Block size: 131072
> Num of blocks: 10000
> Will perform write test on volume: dispersevol Successfully filled file
1449697651.glfs Write test succeeded Write test succeeded.
>
> real 0m18.630s
> user 0m8.804s
> sys 0m1.870s
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Ram
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pranith Kumar Karampuri [mailto:pkarampu at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 1:39 AM
> To: Ankireddypalle Reddy; Vijay Bellur; gluster-users at gluster.org
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] libgfapi access
>
>
>
> On 12/08/2015 08:28 PM, Ankireddypalle Reddy wrote:
>> Vijay,
>> We are trying to write data backed up by Commvault
simpana to glusterfs volume. The data being written is around 30 GB. Two kinds
of write requests happen.
>> 1) 1MB requests
>> 2) Small write requests of size 128 bytes. In case of libgfapi access
these are cached and a single 128KB write request is made where as in case of
FUSE the 128 byte write request is handled to FUSE directly.
>>
>> glusterfs 3.6.5 built on Aug 24 2015 10:02:43
>>
>> Volume Name: dispersevol
>> Type: Disperse
>> Volume ID: c5d6ccf8-6fec-4912-ab2e-6a7701e4c4c0
>> Status: Started
>> Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3
>> Transport-type: tcp
>> Bricks:
>> Brick1: ssdtest:/mnt/ssdfs1/brick3
>> Brick2: sanserver2:/data/brick3
>> Brick3: santest2:/home/brick3
>> Options Reconfigured:
>> performance.cache-size: 512MB
>> performance.write-behind-window-size: 8MB
>> performance.io-thread-count: 32
>> performance.flush-behind: on
> hi,
> Things look okay. May be we can find something using profile info.
>
> Could you post the results of the following operations:
> 1) gluster volume profile <volname> start
> 2) Run the fuse workload
> 3) gluster volume profile <volname> info >
/path/to/file-1/to/send/us
> 4) Run the libgfapi workload
> 5)gluster volume profile <volname> info >
/path/to/file-2/to/send/us
>
> Send both these files to us to check what are the extra fops if any that
are sent over network which may be causing the delay.
>
> I see that you are using disperse volume. If you are going to use disperse
volume for production usecases, I suggest you use 3.7.x preferably 3.7.3. We
fixed a bug in releases from 3.7.4 till 3.7.6 which will be released in 3.7.7.
>
> Pranith
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Ram
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vijay Bellur [mailto:vbellur at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 6:13 PM
>> To: Ankireddypalle Reddy; gluster-users at gluster.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] libgfapi access
>>
>> On 12/07/2015 10:29 AM, Ankireddypalle Reddy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to use libgfapi interface to access gluster
>>> volume. What I noticed is that reads/writes to the gluster volume
>>> through libgfapi interface are slower than FUSE. I was expecting
>>> the contrary. Are there any recommendations/settings suggested to
be
>>> used while using libgfapi interface.
>>>
>> Can you please provide more details about your tests? Providing
information like I/O block size, file size, throughput would be helpful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************Legal
>> Disclaimer***************************
>> "This communication may contain confidential and privileged
material
>> for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review,
>> use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received the message by mistake, please advise the sender by reply
email and delete the message. Thank you."
>> *********************************************************************
>> * _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
> ***************************Legal Disclaimer***************************
> "This communication may contain confidential and privileged material
> for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review,
> use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received the message by mistake, please advise the sender by reply email
and delete the message. Thank you."
> **********************************************************************
***************************Legal Disclaimer***************************
"This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for
the
sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message by mistake,
please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************