Christopher Barry wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 22:23 -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Pavel Stano wrote:
and then run touch on node 1:
serpico# touch /d/0/test
and ls on node 2:
dinorscio:~# time ls /d/0/
test
What have you expected from a cluster filesystem ? When you touch a file
on node 1, it is a "create" that requires at least 2 exclusive locks
(directory lock and the file lock itself, among many other things). On a
local filesystem such as ext3, disk activities are delayed due to
filesystem cache where "touch" writes the data into cache and "ls" reads
it from cache on the very same node - all memory operations. On cluster
filesystem, when you do an "ls" on node 2, node 2 needs to ask node 1 to
release the locks (few ping-pong messages between two nodes and lock
managers via network), the contents inside node 1's cache need to get
synced to the shared storage. After node 2 gets the locks, it has to
read contents from the disk.
I hope the above explanation is clear.
and last thing, i try gfs2, but same result
-- Wendy
This seems a little bit odd to me. I'm running a RH 7.3 cluster,
pre-redhat Sistina GFS, lock_gulm, 1GB FC shared disk, and have been
since ~2002.
Here's the timing I get for the same basic test between two nodes:
[root@sbc1 root]# cd /mnt/gfs/workspace/cbarry/
[root@sbc1 cbarry]# mkdir tst
[root@sbc1 cbarry]# cd tst
[root@sbc1 tst]# time touch testfile
real 0m0.094s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
[root@sbc1 tst]# time ls -la testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jul 11 12:20 testfile
real 0m0.122s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.000s
[root@sbc1 tst]#
Then immediately from the other node:
[root@sbc2 root]# cd /mnt/gfs/workspace/cbarry/
[root@sbc2 cbarry]# time ls -la tst
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 3864 Jul 11 12:20 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 cbarry cbarry 3864 Jul 11 12:20 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jul 11 12:20 testfile
real 0m0.088s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.000s
[root@sbc2 cbarry]#
Now, you cannot tell me 10 seconds is 'normal' for a clustered fs. That
just does not fly. My guess is DLM is causing problems.
From previous post, we really can't tell since the network and disk
speeds are variables and unknown. However, look at your data:
local "ls" is 0.122s
remote "ls" is 0.088s
I bet the disk flushing happened during first "ls" (and different base
kernels treat their dirty data flush and IO scheduling differently). I
can't be convinced that DLM is an issue - unless the experiment has
collected enough sample that has its statistical significance.
-- Wendy
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
