Strahil
2019-Jul-04 22:09 UTC
[Gluster-users] Extremely low performance - am I doing somethingwrong?
So your glusterfs is virtual... I think that Red Hat mention about VMs on gluster (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.1/html/configuring_red_hat_enterprise_virtualization_with_red_hat_gluster_storage/optimizing_virtual_machines_on_red_hat_storage_volumes) , but nothing about virtualized gluster. What tune profile do you use on the gluster cluster ? Can you cycle through high-performance , latency-performance & network-performance (all nodes on same tuned profile before going to the next)? What disk scheduler are you using ? Try with 'noop'/'none' (depends if multique is enabled) on all nodes. Note: 'elevator=none' kernel parameter doesn't work (actually it doesn't exist at all). Use udev rules or manually change it. Best Regards, Strahil NikolovOn Jul 4, 2019 12:28, Vladimir Melnik <v.melnik at tucha.ua> wrote:> > All 4 virtual machines working as nodes of the cluster are located on > the same physical server. The server has 6 SSD-modules and a > RAID-controller with a BBU. RAID level is 10, write-back cache is > enabled. Moreover, each node of the GlusterFS cluster shows normal > performance when it writes to the disk where the brick resides even with > oflag=sync: > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0326612 s, 321 MB/s > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0302878 s, 346 MB/s > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0352449 s, 298 MB/s > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0316872 s, 331 MB/s > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0333189 s, 315 MB/s > > So, the disk is OK and the network is OK, I'm 100% sure. > > Seems to be a GlusterFS-related issue. Either something needs to be > tweaked or it's a normal performance for a replica-3 cluster. > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 07:18:21AM +0300, Strahil wrote: > > I think , it'related to the sync type of oflag. > > Do you have a raid controller on each brick , to immediate take the data into the cache ? > > > > Best Regards, > > Strahil NikolovOn Jul 3, 2019 23:15, Vladimir Melnik <v.melnik at tucha.ua> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if I had around 80-100 MB/s, but 10-15 > > > MB/s is really few. :-( > > > > > > Even when I mount a filesystem on the same GlusterFS node, I have the > > > following result: > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.409856 s, 25.6 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.38967 s, 26.9 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.466758 s, 22.5 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.412075 s, 25.4 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.381626 s, 27.5 MB/s > > > > > > At the same time on the same node when I'm writing directly to the disk: > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0326612 s, 321 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0302878 s, 346 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0352449 s, 298 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0316872 s, 331 MB/s > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0333189 s, 315 MB/s > > > > > > Can't explain it to myself. Are replica-3 volumes really so slow? > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Dmitry Filonov wrote: > > > > Well, if your network is limited to 100MB/s then it doesn't matter if > > > > storage is capable of doing 300+MB/s. > > > > But 15 MB/s is still way less than 100 MB/s > > > > > > > > P.S. just tried on my gluster and found out that am getting ~15MB/s on > > > > replica 3 volume on SSDs and... 2MB/s on replica 3 volume on HDDs. > > > > Something to look at next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Dmitry Filonov > > > > Linux Administrator > > > > SBGrid Core | Harvard Medical School > > > > 250 Longwood Ave, SGM-114 > > > > Boston, MA 02115 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:18 PM Vladimir Melnik <v.melnik at tucha.ua> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thank you, it helped a little: > > > > > > > > > > $ for i in {1..5}; do { dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/glusterfs1/test.tmp bs=1M > > > > > count=10 oflag=sync; rm -f /mnt/glusterfs1/test.tmp; } done 2>&1 | grep > > > > > copied > > > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.738968 s, 14.2 MB/s > > > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.725296 s, 14.5 MB/s > > > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.681508 s, 15.4 MB/s > > > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.85566 s, 12.3 MB/s > > > > > 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.661457 s, 15.9 MB/s > > > > > > > > > > But 14-15 MB/s is still quite far from the actual storage's performance > > > > > (200-3000 MB/s). :-( > > > > > > > > > > Here's full configuration dump (just in case): > > > > > > > > > > Option????????????????????????????????? Value > > > > > ------????????????????????????????????? ----- > > > > > cluster.lookup-unhashed???????????????? on > > > > > cluster.lookup-optimize???????????????? on > > > > > cluster.min-free-disk?????????????????? 10% > > > > > cluster.min-free-inodes???????????????? 5% > > > > > cluster.rebalance-stats???????????????? off > > > > > cluster.subvols-per-directory?????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.readdir-optimize??????????????? off > > > > > cluster.rsync-hash-regex??????????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.extra-hash-regex??????????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.dht-xattr-name????????????????? trusted.glusterfs.dht > > > > > cluster.randomize-hash-range-by-gfid??? off > > > > > cluster.rebal-throttle????????????????? normal > > > > > cluster.lock-migration????????????????? off > > > > > cluster.force-migration???????????????? off > > > > > cluster.local-volume-name?????????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.weighted-rebalance????????????? on > > > > > cluster.switch-pattern????????????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.entry-change-log??????????????? on > > > > > cluster.read-subvolume????????????????? (null) > > > > > cluster.read-subvolume-index??????????? -1 > > > > > cluster.read-hash-mode????????????????? 1 > > > > > cluster.background-self-heal-count????? 8 > > > > > cluster.metadata-self-heal????????????? off > > > > > cluster.data-self-heal????????????????? off > > > > > cluster.entry-self-heal???????????????? off > > > > > cluster.self-heal-d