Hi, I am testing gluster 3.2 for LOSF (lots of small files) scenario recently, with iozne and postmark benchmark tools. And the results show that LOSF performance is really bad, random read/write rate is just only about 2 ~ 4MB/s. I tried RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, and it's the same result. And create ops with postmark is 100 ~ 400 per second. I deployed 4 bricks servers: Dell R510, 4 1TB SATA disks, 1 GiE NIC, 8GB Mem, and test machine is also R510 with 2 SAS disks and 16GB memory. Any good ideas on gluster3.2 tunning for LOSF? Why dbd translator is removed from gluster 3.2? thanks in advance. BR, liuben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110518/86ee84cb/attachment.html>
You will find difficult to tune when using small files. But what you are seeing is really low. Is your average file size 10k? Are these text files? 1) of all what's your throughput requirements?? 2) try running "dd" tests with oflag/iflag=direct 3) run multiple clients from separate hosts and see if you add a client does it linearly increase the performance. 4) when using small files increasing number of parallel threads from same client will not increase performance. lower the threads and see if that helps. Post results. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, nuaa_liuben <nuaa_liuben at sina.com> wrote:> Hi, > > I am testing gluster 3.2 for LOSF (lots of small files) scenario recently, > with iozne and postmark benchmark tools. And the results show that LOSF > performance is really bad, random read/write rate is just only about 2 ~ > 4MB/s. I tried RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, and it's the same result. And create > ops with postmark is?100 ~ 400 per second. > > I deployed 4 bricks servers: Dell R510,??4 1TB SATA disks, 1 GiE NIC, 8GB > Mem, and test machine is also R510 with 2 SAS disks and 16GB memory. > > Any good ideas on gluster3.2 tunning for LOSF? > Why dbd translator is removed from gluster 3.2? > thanks in advance. > > > BR, > liuben > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >
Avg. files size is between 2 ~ 6KB, both text and binary files. 1) about 30 MB/s for singel client, this can be realized? 2) dd with 4KB can get about 30 - 40MB/s 3) multiple clients can near linearly increase performance 4) only use single thread for testing BR, liuben>From: Mohit Anchlia >Send Time: 2011-05-18 09:54:45 >TO: nuaa_liuben >CC: gluster-users >Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster 3.2 for lots of small files >You will find difficult to tune when using small files. But what you are seeing is really low. Is your average file size 10k? Are these text files? 1) of all what's your throughput requirements?? 2) try running "dd" tests with oflag/iflag=direct 3) run multiple clients from separate hosts and see if you add a client does it linearly increase the performance. 4) when using small files increasing number of parallel threads from same client will not increase performance. lower the threads and see if that helps. Post results. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, nuaa_liuben <nuaa_liuben at sina.com> wrote:> Hi, > > I am testing gluster 3.2 for LOSF (lots of small files) scenario recently, > with iozne and postmark benchmark tools. And the results show that LOSF > performance is really bad, random read/write rate is just only about 2 ~ > 4MB/s. I tried RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, and it's the same result. And create > ops with postmark is 100 ~ 400 per second. > > I deployed 4 bricks servers: Dell R510, 4 1TB SATA disks, 1 GiE NIC, 8GB > Mem, and test machine is also R510 with 2 SAS disks and 16GB memory. > > Any good ideas on gluster3.2 tunning for LOSF? > Why dbd translator is removed from gluster 3.2? > thanks in advance. > > > BR, > liuben > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110518/7bce818e/attachment.html>