Raghavendra Gowdappa
2018-Nov-12 04:25 UTC
[Gluster-users] On making ctime generator enabled by default in stack
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote:> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:31 PM Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:58 AM Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 7:56 PM Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> There is a patch [1] from Kotresh, which makes ctime generator as >>>> default in stack. Currently ctime generator is being recommended only for >>>> usecases where ctime is important (like for Elasticsearch). However, a >>>> reliable (c)(m)time can fix many consistency issues within glusterfs stack >>>> too. These are issues with caching layers having stale (meta)data >>>> [2][3][4]. Basically just like applications, components within glusterfs >>>> stack too need a time to find out which among racing ops (like write, stat, >>>> etc) has latest (meta)data. >>>> >>>> Also note that a consistent (c)(m)time is not an optional feature, but >>>> instead forms the core of the infrastructure. So, I am proposing to merge >>>> this patch. If you've any objections, please voice out before Nov 13, 2018 >>>> (a week from today). >>>> >>>> As to the existing known issues/limitations with ctime generator, my >>>> conversations with Kotresh, revealed following: >>>> * Potential performance degradation (we don't yet have data to >>>> conclusively prove it, preliminary basic tests from Kotresh didn't indicate >>>> a significant perf drop). >>>> >>> >>> Do we have this data captured somewhere? If not, would it be possible to >>> share that data here? >>> >> >> I misquoted Kotresh. He had measured impact of gfid2path and said both >> features might've similar impact as major perf cost is related to storing >> xattrs on backend fs. I am in the process of getting a fresh set of >> numbers. Will post those numbers when available. >> >> > > I observe that the patch under discussion has been merged now [1]. A quick > search did not yield me any performance data. Do we have the performance > numbers posted somewhere? >No. Perf benchmarking is a task pending on me.> > Thanks, > Vijay > > [1] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/21060/ > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20181112/224acb88/attachment.html>
Vijay Bellur
2018-Nov-12 05:08 UTC
[Gluster-users] On making ctime generator enabled by default in stack
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:25 PM Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com> wrote:> > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:31 PM Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:58 AM Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 7:56 PM Raghavendra Gowdappa < >>>> rgowdapp at redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> There is a patch [1] from Kotresh, which makes ctime generator as >>>>> default in stack. Currently ctime generator is being recommended only for >>>>> usecases where ctime is important (like for Elasticsearch). However, a >>>>> reliable (c)(m)time can fix many consistency issues within glusterfs stack >>>>> too. These are issues with caching layers having stale (meta)data >>>>> [2][3][4]. Basically just like applications, components within glusterfs >>>>> stack too need a time to find out which among racing ops (like write, stat, >>>>> etc) has latest (meta)data. >>>>> >>>>> Also note that a consistent (c)(m)time is not an optional feature, but >>>>> instead forms the core of the infrastructure. So, I am proposing to merge >>>>> this patch. If you've any objections, please voice out before Nov 13, 2018 >>>>> (a week from today). >>>>> >>>>> As to the existing known issues/limitations with ctime generator, my >>>>> conversations with Kotresh, revealed following: >>>>> * Potential performance degradation (we don't yet have data to >>>>> conclusively prove it, preliminary basic tests from Kotresh didn't indicate >>>>> a significant perf drop). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do we have this data captured somewhere? If not, would it be possible >>>> to share that data here? >>>> >>> >>> I misquoted Kotresh. He had measured impact of gfid2path and said both >>> features might've similar impact as major perf cost is related to storing >>> xattrs on backend fs. I am in the process of getting a fresh set of >>> numbers. Will post those numbers when available. >>> >>> >> >> I observe that the patch under discussion has been merged now [1]. A >> quick search did not yield me any performance data. Do we have the >> performance numbers posted somewhere? >> > > No. Perf benchmarking is a task pending on me. >When can we expect this task to be complete? In any case, I don't think it is ideal for us to merge a patch without completing our due diligence on it. How do we want to handle this scenario since the patch is already merged? We could: 1. Revert the patch now 2. Review the performance data and revert the patch if performance characterization indicates a significant dip. It would be preferable to complete this activity before we branch off for the next release. 3. Think of some other option? Thanks, Vijay>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20181111/8fdee77d/attachment.html>