Am Samstag 19 Januar 2008 13:25:55 schrieb Angel: > Hi Sascha > > I have a few ideas you can try to figure out a bit more wahts > happening > > > Maybe there is locking on the apache as it traverses files. Hi Angel, thanks for you answer. Unfortunately, I'm not the one with the php performance problem, I was only suggesting that our problems _might_ be related. For me, I'm only serving small static image files that live on a gluster mount. And find it strange and unexpected that apache1 outperforms apache2, nginx and lighttpd so significantly... I will give the locks a try, as well as the trace xlator, but as I'm only reading I can't imagine how locks would make a difference. Thanks, Sascha > > Asking the devels: > Is locking implemented on files (posix-locks over posix-storage) or > does unify locks also files on namespace? Are there any diferences on > run with / without, posix-locks? Show the trace xlator locking > activity? > > You said there are over 1700 files , are them php code and includes? > How many files you estimate are implicated on php script execution? > Maybe you are running out of file descriptors on some node.. > > > Try run a local only scenary without client/server, you can test cpu > usage againts plain direct access or access via gluster mount point > > Also you ca trigger php script on cmd line to avoid apache > singularities and focus un glusterfs vs plain filesystem > > This also applies in the network scenary, Apache vs non-Apache access > would be very informational is they differ a lot > > Regards, Angel > > El Sábado, 19 de Enero de 2008 Sascha Ottolski escribió: > > Am Freitag 18 Januar 2008 17:49:15 schrieb Anand Avati: > > > Sascha, > > > the reason why 1.3.0pre4 might be faster would not be because of > > > the missing namespace, but most likely because of missing > > > self-heal. can you try with 'option self-heal off' in the unify > > > section? > > > > may ask again, any idea why the old apache-1.3 performs way better > > on either gluster version than the others? or any idea which knobs > > to tweak to get more out of the others? > > > > usally, for static files from a local fileseystem, one would expect > > that nginx and lighttpd would outperform the apaches > > remarcably...may be my observations have a common cause with those > > of > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2008-01/msg00142 > >.html ? > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Sascha > > > > > are the test results same for multiple runs too? > > > > > > avati > > > > > > 2008/1/18, Sascha Ottolski <ottolski@xxxxxx>: > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if anyone might have some general advices if I > > > > miss something important in my test setup. I'm trying to figure > > > > out how to tweak the configs to achieve the best performance, > > > > but get result that feel strange to me. I will post some > > > > numbers at a later point, but up to now what I discovered is: > > > > > > > > - glusterfs without a namespace (1.3.0pre4) seems to be > > > > significant faster than with namespace (tla patch-628) > > > > > > > > that seems to logical, at least I would expect some overhead > > > > for the namespace. > > > > > > > > what i absolutely not understand is, how different the > > > > webservers perform. i tested with > > > > > > > > siege -f /tmp/siege-urls.txt.new -c100 -i -r50 -b > > > > > > > > with up to 3 sessions in parellel, each firing it's requests to > > > > a seperate webserver (on seperate machines, of course). > > > > > > > > up to now my ranking by means of requests/per second is > > > > something like > > > > > > > > 630 | apache > > > > 430 | apache2 (worker) > > > > 350 | nginx > > > > 250 | lighttpd > > > > > > > > (with 1.3.0pre4 and no namespace, the best I've seen was > > > > apache2 with about 900, apache still 750). I must admit that up > > > > to now I did not compare it to local filesystem, but from my > > > > past experiences with webservers I would expect nginx and > > > > lighttpd way ahead of the apaches... > > > > > > > > Also, I exprimented a bit with different settings for > > > > io-threads on the server (1, 2, 4, 8, and cache-size 64 or > > > > 128MB), but that didn't seem to make much of a difference. Same > > > > with read-ahead (which seems logical, as I test with relatively > > > > small images). > > > > > > > > So far I did not try the booster. I use fuse-2.7.0-glfs7. I > > > > also did not try the latest tla nor fuse-2.7.2-glfs8. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for any pointer, > > > > > > > > Sascha > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
