Mine is xfs, can you test on ext3?
Krishna
On 7/5/07, Anand Avati <avati@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which is the backend filesystem in picture? probably ext3 is not the best in
handling extended attributes? how is the performance with, say, XFS?
avati
2007/7/5, Krishna Srinivas <krishna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi Gerry,
>
> Good observation. I was checking on the performance with
> self-heal turned off and the turning it on.
>
> On glusterfs mounted directory:
> With self-heal on:
> bash-3.1# time cp -r /etc/ .
>
> real 0m28.048s
> user 0m0.004s
> sys 0m0.060s
> bash-3.1# time rm -rf etc/
>
> real 0m28.666s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.032s
> bash-3.1#
>
> With self-heal off:
> bash-3.1# time cp -r /etc/ .
>
> real 0m2.376s
> user 0m0.012s
> sys 0m0.060s
> bash-3.1# time rm -rf etc/
>
> real 0m3.639s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.000s
> bash-3.1#
>
> So there is significant difference. The difference is that there is no
> external attributes management when the self-heal is off. AFR code
> does getxattr/setxattr when self-heal is on, so this introduces
> some overhead. Also there will be overhead in the backend filesystem
> code to manage xttrs.
>
> However, if i try to delete the etc directory directly in the backend
> (it was copied through glusterfs with self-heal on)
> bash-3.1# time rm -rf /export/dir1/etc/
>
> real 0m18.414s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.132s
> bash-3.1#
>
> So there is significant overhead in the backend filesystem itself
> when xattrs are involved.
>
> Checking the overhead on open/close calls:
> (here a.out opens, writes a byte, closes)
>
> Selfheal is on:
> bash-3.1# time find . -type f -exec /root/a.out {} \;
>
> real 0m1.529s
> user 0m0.120s
> sys 0m0.284s
> bash-3.1#
>
> Selfheal off:
> bash-3.1# time find . -type f -exec /root/a.out {} \;
>
> real 0m0.577s
> user 0m0.124s
> sys 0m0.260s
> bash-3.1#
>
>
>
> There is not much difference here. So setxattr/getxattr
> does not take much time if xattrs are already existing on
> he file. Hence there will be lot overhead only during create/unlink.
>
> We will see if we can optimize anyway in the AFR code.
> We have to note that backend system takes a lot
> of time during create/delete which we dont have control
> over. But still it is acceptable as there is not much overhead
> during open/close/write calls.
>
> Regards
> Krishna
>
> On 7/5/07, Anand Avati <avati@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
> > please use the write-behind translator on the client side (above AFR)
> >
> > thanks,
> > avati
> >
> > 2007/7/4, Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > In copying my /usr tree (4.9G) to a gluster client mount with a 4
> > brick
> > > AFR with no other translators I see it is taking about 1 hr. 45
> > min. Is
> > > this normal performance?
> > > Now this is with the bricks all on the same machine and same ext3
> > > filesystem, but that seems like a long time even still.
> > >
> > > Gerry
> > >
