find /glustefs/mntpnt/* -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -l100 -n100 -P N md5sum how the sistem performs as N increases? Is this test as slow as apache2 access? from: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/misc/perf-tuning.html you can read that Memory-mapping In situations where Apache 2.x needs to look at the contents of a file being delivered--for example, when doing server-side-include processing--it normally memory-maps the file if the OS supports some form of mmap(2). On some platforms, this memory-mapping improves performance. However, there are cases where memory-mapping can hurt the performance or even the stability of the httpd: On some operating systems, mmap does not scale as well as read(2) when the number of CPUs increases. On multiprocessor Solaris servers, for example, Apache 2.x sometimes delivers server-parsed files faster when mmap is disabled. If you memory-map a file located on an NFS-mounted filesystem and a process on another NFS client machine deletes or truncates the file, your process may get a bus error the next time it tries to access the mapped file content. For installations where either of these factors applies, you should use EnableMMAP off to disable the memory-mapping of delivered files. (Note: This directive can be overridden on a per-directory basis.) Can you rey EnableMMAP off? ¿Is mmaping the problem? El Domingo, 20 de Enero de 2008 Sascha Ottolski escribió: > Am Sonntag 20 Januar 2008 01:38:28 schrieb Anand Avati: > > Sascha, > > Please run by removing AFR (make AFR's first subvolume a direct > > subvolume of unify). AFR can potentially flush io-cache pages while > > doing read scheduling across subvolumes (by returning inconsistent > > mtimes with the read buffer). we are working on fixing this. > > > > avati > > I will try this, but isn't it still strange that the caching _does_ work > with the exact same config for apache-1.3? I would hope that this > different behaviour could be related to the unexpected slowness of the > other werbservers (which also is there with caching disabled!). > > Thanks, Sascha > > > > > > 2008/1/20, Sascha Ottolski <ottolski@xxxxxx>: > > > Am Sonntag 20 Januar 2008 01:14:06 schrieb Anand Avati: > > > > can you please share your spec files with glusterfs.pastebin.com > > > > ? > > > > > > my pleasure: http://glusterfs.pastebin.com/m8820300 > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your time, > > > > > > Sascha > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > avati > > > > > > > > 2008/1/20, Sascha Ottolski <ottolski@xxxxxx>: > > > > > Am Samstag 19 Januar 2008 11:03:43 schrieb Sascha Ottolski: > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > now, another astonishing observation: if I enable the io-cache, > > > > > it has a good effect for apache1 (almost doubles the > > > > > requests/second), but almost none for apache2, nginx and > > > > > lighttpd. > > > > > > > > > > could this help to understand more about the performance > > > > > differences? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Sascha > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ms > > > > > >g001 42.h tml ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------ Clist UAH @gmail!! ------------------------------------------------
