Thank you! All good leads. I'll look into all of these. On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:50:15 -0500, Alexandre Racine wrote: > Performance links > > RedHat Performance FAQ http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_78_3152.shtm > > GFS Performance Tuning http://sourceware.org/cluster/faq.html#gfs_tuning > > Mount with noatime http://man.chinaunix.net/linux/redhat/rh-gfs-en-6.0/s1- > manage-atimeconf.html > > Turn off disk quotas http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/2006- > August/msg00237.html > > Alexandre Racine > Projets spéciaux > 514-461-1300 poste 3304 > alexandre.racine@xxxxxxxxx > > > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx on behalf of isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wed 2007-11-28 21:08 > To: linux-cluster > Subject: GFS and server performance = Application > > I've been trying to get a handle on web server performance on GFS mounted > storage vs none. Since the other thread kind of got lost, I decided to > start a > new one. What I've found is interesting enough that I felt I should talk > about > it since I'm surely not the only one using Joomla, in this case. > > This test is without GFS mounted as the root of the web server. The root of > the site only has an index.html file with little in it; > > #ab -k -n 100 -c 100 http://192.168.1.92/ > > Time taken for tests: 0.279518 seconds > Requests per second: 357.76 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 279.518 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 2.795 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 146.68 [Kbytes/sec] received > > Same test with GFS mounted as the root of the web server. The root of the > site > only has an index.html file with little in it; > > # ab -k -n 100 -c 100 http://192.168.1.92/ > > Time taken for tests: 0.162151 seconds > Requests per second: 616.71 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 162.151 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 1.622 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 160.34 [Kbytes/sec] received > > Similar right? Now, let's try the same test but this time, we add a full > bore > application, a Joomla site in this case at the root of the web server; > > #ab -k -n 100 -c 100 http://192.168.1.92/ > > Time taken for tests: 33.583784 seconds > Requests per second: 2.98 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 33583.782 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 335.838 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 27.42 [Kbytes/sec] received > > Quite the difference and little to do with GFS from what I can tell. And, > this > is what I am trying to confirm, and am asking from the community. Is there > any > fine tuning needed for GFS and the cluster itself as well as what ever I > will > do with the cluster later? > > In another thread, I was told that GFS would hurt performance and my thought > was that well, yes, it would take up some of the servers resources but there > should be plenty left over to handle web serving or what ever else the > server > needs to serve up. > > I've tested this in various ways today, from external connections, internal, > various httpd.conf settings, it's always the same. While some of the > httpd.conf settings have some effects, the biggest one is always what > application is being run on the server. In this case, Joomla seems to be > insanely resource intensive. > > Are there any thoughts on this so that I can know where I need to spend my > time now. Should I worry about GFS and the cluster itself or move on and > start > trying to figure out how to get Joomla to run more effectively? > > Mike > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
