search for: smallfile

...added the bold): > > > mount -t glusterfs -o > *attribute-timeout=600,entry-timeout=600,negative-timeout=600,fopen-keep-cache* > ,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log > 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www > > > Results: > > > root at app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test > --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 > --record-size 64 > smallfile version 3.0 > hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] > top test directory(s) : ['/v...

Hello Joe, ? ? I just did a mount like this (added the bold): ? mount -t glusterfs -o attribute-timeout=600,entry-timeout=600,negative-timeout=600,fopen-keep-cache,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www ?Results: ? root at app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] ? ? ? ?...

...wrote: Hello Joe, ? ? I just did a mount like this (added the bold): ? mount -t glusterfs -o attribute-timeout=600,entry-timeout=600,negative-timeout=600,fopen-keep-cache,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www ?Results: ? root at app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] ? ? ? ?...

Author: rbourbon Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: a40f0552fb65649aa4c6751b7dfa343fad066ef8 Log message: 4849565 smallfile too small - change to 64 bit 6207772 UFS freebehind can slow application performance due to text segment paging 6279932 35% drop in SPECweb2005 Support workload performance from snv_07 to snv_08 Files: update: usr/src/uts/common/fs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c

...added/changed while >> testing. But it was always slow, by tuning some kernel parameters >> it improved slightly (just a few percent, nothing reasonable) >> I also tried ceph just to compare, I got this with default >> settings and no tweaks: >> ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set >> 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 >> --record-size 64 >> smallfile version 3.0 >> hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] >> top test dir...

Hello, ? ? Here is some speedtest with a new setup we just made with gluster 3.10, there are no other differences, except glusterfs versus nfs. The nfs is about 80 times faster: ? ? root at app1:~/smallfile-master# mount -t glusterfs -o use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www root at app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 500 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version...

...m-type: auto ? I started with none of them set and I added/changed while testing. But it was always slow, by tuning some kernel parameters it improved slightly (just a few percent, nothing reasonable) ? I also tried ceph just to compare, I got this with default settings and no tweaks: ? ?./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?...

...luster.quorum-type: auto ?I started with none of them set and I added/changed while testing. But it was always slow, by tuning some kernel parameters it improved slightly (just a few percent, nothing reasonable) ?I also tried ceph just to compare, I got this with default settings and no tweaks: ??./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 smallfile version 3.0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?...

...I started with none of them set and I added/changed while testing. But > it was always slow, by tuning some kernel parameters it improved > slightly (just a few percent, nothing reasonable) > I also tried ceph just to compare, I got this with default settings > and no tweaks: > ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 > --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 > smallfile version 3.0 > hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41'] > top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test'] >...

...t; > > > After that I tried nfs (native gluster nfs 3 and ganesha nfs 4), it was > a crazy performance difference. > > > > e.g.: 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www nfs4 defaults,_netdev 0 0 > > > > I tried a test like this to confirm the slowness: > > > > ./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 > --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 > > This test finished in around 1.5 seconds with NFS and in more than 250 > seconds without nfs (can't remember exact numbers, but I reproduced it > several times for...

...2 + 1) = 3 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 192.168.50.1:/rhgs/brick1/vmstore Brick2: 192.168.50.2:/rhgs/brick1/vmstore Brick3: 192.168.50.3:/rhgs/ssd/vmstore (arbiter) Options Reconfigured: features.quota-deem-statfs: on nfs.disable: on features.inode-quota: on features.quota: on And I ran the smallfile benchmark, created 80k 64KB files. After that I clear cache everywhere and ran a smallfile stat test [root at dell-per730-06-priv ~]# python /smallfile/smallfile_cli.py --files 10000 --file-size 64 --threads 8 --top /gluster-mount/s-file/ --operation stat version...

...timeout=1,use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www ?mount -t glusterfs -o use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www ?So it means only 1 second negative timeout... ?In this particular test:?./smallfile_cli.py ?--top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 50000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64 ??The result is about 4 seconds with the negative timeout of 1 second defined and many many minutes without the negative timeout (I quit after 15 minutes of waiting) ?I will go over to s...

...performance problems with small files writes on Gluster. > >> The read performance has been improved in many ways in recent releases > >> (md-cache, parallel-readdir, hot-tier). > >> But write performance is more or less the same and you cannot go above > >> 10K smallfiles create - even with SSD or Optane drives. > >> Even ramdisk is not helping much here, because the bottleneck is not > >> in the storage performance. > >> Key problems I've noticed: > >> - LOOKUPs are expensive, because there is separate query for every > &...

Hi Ben, do you know if the smallfile benchmark also does interleaved getdents() and lstat, which is what I found as being the key difference that creates the performance gap (further down this thread)? Also, wouldn't `--threads 8` change the performance numbers by factor 8 versus the plain `ls` and `rsync` that I did? Would you...

Hi, I have a gluster 3.10 volume with a dir with ~1 million small files in them, say mounted at /mnt/dir with FUSE, and I'm observing something weird: When I list and stat them all using rsync, then the lstat() calls that rsync does are incredibly fast (23 microseconds per call on average, definitely faster than a network roundtrip between my 3-machine bricks connected via Ethernet). But

...amb?chen" <mail at nh2.me> > To: "Ben Turner" <bturner at redhat.com> > Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:49:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Confusing lstat() performance > > Hi Ben, > > do you know if the smallfile benchmark also does interleaved getdents() > and lstat, which is what I found as being the key difference that > creates the performance gap (further down this thread)? I am not sure, you can have a look at it: https://github.com/bengland2/smallfile > > Also, wouldn't `--thread...

...locking.tdb and restart samba - connect a linux client using cifs mount -run the following script on the client: #!bin/bash for i in `seq 1 130000`;do echo $i echo === KB_rand=$(((RANDOM % 300 + 1)*(1000)) dd if=/dev/urandom of=/mnt/cifs/files/smallfile$i bs=$KB_rand count=1 done So there's only one client writing many files. The locking.tdb file grew to 2 megs, at which point space was exhausted (I put the temp files in tmpfs, perhaps a mistake :)). Is this to be expected? what causes this increase? does it saturate at some point?...

Have you done any testing with replica 2/3? IIRC my replica 2/3 tests out performed EC on smallfile workloads, it may be worth looking into if you can't get EC up to where you need it to be. -b ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitri Chebotarov" <4dimach at gmail.com> > Cc: "gluster-users" <Gluster-users at gluster.org> > Sent: Tuesday, Septembe...

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 11:15:32AM +0000, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > is possible to add an arbiter node on the client? I've been running in that configuration for a couple months now with no problems. I have 6 data + 3 arbiter bricks hosting VM disk images and all three of my arbiter bricks are on one of the kvm hosts. > Can I use multiple arbiter for the same volume ? In example,

is possible to add an arbiter node on the client? Let's assume a gluster storage made with 2 storage server. This is prone to split-brains. An arbiter node can be added, but can I put the arbiter on one of the client ? Can I use multiple arbiter for the same volume ? In example, one arbiter on each client.