similar to: 4849565 smallfile too small - change to 64 bit

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jo Goossens <jo.goossens at hosted-power.com> 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 >

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

Hello Vijay, ? ? What do you mean exactly? What info is missing? ? PS: I already found out that for this particular test all the difference is made by :?negative-timeout=600 , when removing it, it's much much slower again. ? ? Regards Jo ? -----Original message----- From:Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> Sent:Tue 11-07-2017 18:16 Subject:Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is

On 07/11/2017 08:14 AM, Jo Goossens wrote: > RE: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs > > Hello Joe, > > I really appreciate your feedback, but I already tried the opcache > stuff (to not valildate at all). It improves of course then, but not > completely somehow. Still quite slow. > > I did not try the mount options yet, but I will now!

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

Hello Joe, ? ? I really appreciate your feedback, but I already tried the opcache stuff (to not valildate at all). It improves of course then, but not completely somehow. Still quite slow. ? I did not try the mount options yet, but I will now! ? ? With nfs (doesnt matter much built-in version 3 or ganesha version 4) I can even host the site perfectly fast without these extreme opcache settings.

Hello, ? ? Here is the volume info as requested by soumya: ? #gluster volume info www ?Volume Name: www Type: Replicate Volume ID: 5d64ee36-828a-41fa-adbf-75718b954aff Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0 Number of Bricks: 1 x 3 = 3 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 192.168.140.41:/gluster/www Brick2: 192.168.140.42:/gluster/www Brick3: 192.168.140.43:/gluster/www Options Reconfigured:

My standard response to someone needing filesystem performance for www traffic is generally, "you're doing it wrong". https://joejulian.name/blog/optimizing-web-performance-with-glusterfs/ That said, you might also look at these mount options: attribute-timeout, entry-timeout, negative-timeout (set to some large amount of time), and fopen-keep-cache. On 07/11/2017 07:48 AM, Jo

Hi all, ? ? One more thing, we have 3 apps servers with the gluster on it, replicated on 3 different gluster nodes. (So the gluster nodes are app servers at the same time). We could actually almost work locally if we wouldn't need to have the same files on the 3 nodes and redundancy :) ? Initial cluster was created like this: ? gluster volume create www replica 3 transport tcp

I did a quick test on one of my lab clusters with no tuning except for quota being enabled: [root at dell-per730-03 ~]# gluster v info Volume Name: vmstore Type: Replicate Volume ID: 0d2e4c49-334b-47c9-8e72-86a4c040a7bd Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0 Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 192.168.50.1:/rhgs/brick1/vmstore Brick2:

Hello, ? ? While there are probably other interesting parameters and options in gluster itself, for us the largest difference with this speedtest and also for our website (real world performance) was the negative-timeout value during mount. Only 1 seems to solve so many problems, is there anyone knowledgeable why this is the case?? ? This would better be default I suppose ...? ? I'm still

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 mind running those commands directly/plainly on your cluster to

Where did you read 2k IOPS? Each disk is able to do about 75iops as I'm using SATA disk, getting even closer to 2000 it's impossible Il 13 ott 2017 9:42 AM, "Szymon Miotk" <szymon.miotk at gmail.com> ha scritto: > Depends what you need. > 2K iops for small file writes is not a bad result. > In my case I had a system that was just poorly written and it was >

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Niklas Hamb?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

Hi, I've noticed that locking.tdb file grows over time. This happened while running the following test: - delete 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

Just posted: http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine ____________________________________________________________________________________ Performance, Availability & Architecture Engineering Roch Bourbonnais Sun Microsystems, Icnc-Grenoble Senior Performance Analyst 180, Avenue De L''Europe, 38330, Montbonnot Saint

Folks, We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck. So, I am recommending that we buy small jbods, do raidz2 and let zfs handle the raiding of these boxes. As we need more

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,

Hi Xavi At this time I'm using 'plain' bricks with XFS. I'll be moving to LVM cached bricks. There is no RAID for data bricks, but I'll be using hardware RAID10 for SSD cache disks (I can use 'writeback' cache in this case). 'small file performance' is the main reason I'm looking at different options, i.e. using formated sparse files. I spent considerable