Gluster users - Mar 2010 - Performance problems

Hello everyone,

I have lenny servers (up do date) with the 3.0.3 package installed from 
sid. Whatever settings i have tried, i am getting these results 
(afr/distribute/cache/nocache) :

root at test4:/var/www# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=1024
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 17.8632 s, 573 kB/s

root at test4:/var/www# dpkg -l |grep -i gluster
ii  glusterfs-client                    3.0.3-1 
clustered file-system (client package)
ii  glusterfs-examples                  3.0.3-1 
example files for the glusterfs server and c
ii  glusterfs-server                    3.0.3-1 
clustered file-system (server package)
ii  libglusterfs0                       3.0.3-1 
GlusterFS libraries and translator modules


Does anyone have a clue on what's hapenning ?

Best regards,

Aur?lien

!DSPAM:4bb0865f212827404114222!

Aurelien ROUGEMONT wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have lenny servers (up do date) with the 3.0.3 package installed 
> from sid. Whatever settings i have tried, i am getting these results 
> (afr/distribute/cache/nocache) :
>
> root at test4:/var/www# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=1024
> 10000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 17.8632 s, 573 kB/s

Have you tried this with write-behind translator loaded in your client 
config file? We recommend using volume files generated by 
glusterfs-volgen utility.
Also, what backend file system are you using while running this?


Regards,
Vijay

Bonjour Aur?lien,

Aurelien ROUGEMONT wrote:
> root at test4:/var/www# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=1024
> 10000+0 records in
> 10000+0 records out
> 10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 17.8632 s, 573 kB/s
I have posted the exact same results just a few days ago (using the sid 
package backported to lenny):
http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2010-March/004240.html

BTW, this seems to be related to the block size. Performances might be 
very different with different block sizes:

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=2000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
20000000 bytes (20 MB) copied, 3,25723 s, 6,1 MB/s

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=10000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
100000000 bytes (100 MB) copied, 3,30255 s, 30,3 MB/s

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=40000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
400000000 bytes (400 MB) copied, 5,97635 s, 66,9 MB/s

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=80000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
800000000 bytes (800 MB) copied, 9,12432 s, 87,7 MB/s

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=160000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
1600000000 bytes (1,6 GB) copied, 15,0147 s, 107 MB/s

gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=10000 bs=320000
10000+0 enregistrements lus
10000+0 enregistrements ?crits
3200000000 bytes (3,2 GB) copied, 28,8645 s, 111 MB/s

TBH, I don't know what to conclude from these results.

Regards,
-- 
Olivier