The 3.7.8 FUSE client is significantly slower than 3.7.6. Is this related to some of the fixes that were done to correct memory leaks? Is there anything that I can do to recover the performance of 3.7.6? My testing involved creating a "bigfile" that is 20GB. I then installed the 3.6.6 FUSE client and tested the copy of the bigfile from one gluster machine to another. The test was repeated 2x to make sure cache wasn't affect performance. Using Centos7.1 FUSE 3.6.6 took 47-seconds and 38-seconds. FUSE 3.7.6 took 43-seconds and 34-seconds. FUSE 3.7.8 took 205-seconds and 224-seconds I repeated the test on another machine that is running centos 6.7 and the results were even worse. 98-seconds for FUSE 3.6.6 versus 575-seconds for FUSE 3.7.8. My server setup is: Volume Name: gfsbackup Type: Distribute Volume ID: 29b8fae9-dfbf-4fa4-9837-8059a310669a Status: Started Number of Bricks: 2 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: ffib01bkp:/data/brick01/gfsbackup Brick2: ffib01bkp:/data/brick02/gfsbackup Options Reconfigured: performance.readdir-ahead: on cluster.rebal-throttle: aggressive diagnostics.client-log-level: WARNING diagnostics.brick-log-level: WARNING changelog.changelog: off client.event-threads: 8 server.event-threads: 8 David ======================= David F. Robinson, Ph.D. President - Corvid Technologies 145 Overhill Drive Mooresville, NC 28117 704.799.6944 x101 [Office] 704.252.1310 [Cell] 704.799.7974 [Fax] david.robinson at corvidtec.com http://www.corvidtec.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160222/73c2436f/attachment.html>
Oleksandr Natalenko
2016-Feb-22 18:12 UTC
[Gluster-users] [Gluster-devel] 3.7.8 client is slow
David, could you please cross-post your observations to the following bugreport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309462 ? It seems you have faced similar issue. On ?????????, 22 ?????? 2016 ?. 16:46:01 EET David Robinson wrote:> The 3.7.8 FUSE client is significantly slower than 3.7.6. Is this > related to some of the fixes that were done to correct memory leaks? Is > there anything that I can do to recover the performance of 3.7.6? > > My testing involved creating a "bigfile" that is 20GB. I then installed > the 3.6.6 FUSE client and tested the copy of the bigfile from one > gluster machine to another. The test was repeated 2x to make sure cache > wasn't affect performance. > > Using Centos7.1 > FUSE 3.6.6 took 47-seconds and 38-seconds. > FUSE 3.7.6 took 43-seconds and 34-seconds. > FUSE 3.7.8 took 205-seconds and 224-seconds > > I repeated the test on another machine that is running centos 6.7 and > the results were even worse. 98-seconds for FUSE 3.6.6 versus > 575-seconds for FUSE 3.7.8. > > My server setup is: > > Volume Name: gfsbackup > Type: Distribute > Volume ID: 29b8fae9-dfbf-4fa4-9837-8059a310669a > Status: Started > Number of Bricks: 2 > Transport-type: tcp > Bricks: > Brick1: ffib01bkp:/data/brick01/gfsbackup > Brick2: ffib01bkp:/data/brick02/gfsbackup > Options Reconfigured: > performance.readdir-ahead: on > cluster.rebal-throttle: aggressive > diagnostics.client-log-level: WARNING > diagnostics.brick-log-level: WARNING > changelog.changelog: off > client.event-threads: 8 > server.event-threads: 8 > > David > > > > =======================> > > > David F. Robinson, Ph.D. > > President - Corvid Technologies > > 145 Overhill Drive > > Mooresville, NC 28117 > > 704.799.6944 x101 [Office] > > 704.252.1310 [Cell] > > 704.799.7974 [Fax] > > david.robinson at corvidtec.com > > http://www.corvidtec.com