we are currently using NFS to meet data sharing requirements.Now we are facing some performance and scalability problem ,so this form does not meet the requirements of our network(performance).So we are finding the possible solutions to increase the performance and scalability .To give very strong solution to NFS issue I have analysed two File System one is GlusterFS and another one is Red Hat GFS.we conclude that GlusterFS will increase the performance and scalability ,It has all the features we are looking .For the testing purpose I am benchmarking NFS and GlusterFS to get better performance .My benchmark result shows that GlusterFS give better performance ,but i am getting some unacceptable read performance . I am not able to understand how exactly the read operation performs NFS and GlusterFS .even I don't know anything i am doing wrong.here i am showing the benchmark result to get better idea of my read performance issuee .i have attached the result of NFS and GlusterFS read values .any one can please go thro this and give me some valuable guide .It will make my benchmarking very effective .
This my server and client Hardware and software :
HARDWARE CONFIG:
Processor core speed : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz
Number of cores : Single Core (not dual-core)
RAM size : 384MB(128MB+256MB)
RAM type : DDR
RAM Speed : 266 MHz (3.8 ns)
Swap : 1027MB
Storage controller : ATA device
Disk model/size : SAMSUNG SV4012H /40 GB,2 MB Cache,
Storage speed : 52.4 MB/sec
Spindle Speed : 5400 rpm(Revolution per Minute)
NIC Type : VIA Rhine III chipset IRQ 18
NIC Speed : 100 Mbps/Full-Duplex Card
SOFTWARE:
Operation System : Fedora Core 9 GNU/Linux
Linux version : 2.6.9-42
Local FS : Ext3
NFS version : 1.1.2
GlusterFS version: glusterfs 1.3.8 built on Feb 3 2008
Iozone : iozone-3-5.fc9.i386 (File System Benchmark Tool)
ttcp : ttcp-1.12-18.fc9.i386(RAW throughput measurement Tool)
This is the server and client vol files i am using the benchmarking
#GlusterFS Server Volume Specification
volume brick
type storage/posix # POSIX FS translator
option directory /bench # /bench dir contains 25,000 files with size 10 KB 15KB
end-volume
volume iot
type performance/io-threads
option thread-count 4
option cache-size 8MB
subvolumes brick
end-volume
volume server
type protocol/server
option transport-type tcp/server
subvolumes iot
option auth.ip.brick.allow * # Allow access to "brick" volume
end-volume
# GlusterFS Client Volume Specification
volume client
type protocol/client
option transport-type tcp/client
option remote-host 192.xxx.x.xxx
option remote-subvolume brick
end-volume
volume readahead
type performance/read-ahead
option page-size 128KB # 256KB is the default option
option page-count 4 # cache per file = (page-count x page-size) 2 is default option
subvolumes client
end-volume
volume iocache
type performance/io-cache
#option page-size 128KB ## default is 32MB
option cache-size 256MB #128KB is default option
option page-count 4
subvolumes readahead
end-volume
volume writeback
type performance/write-behind
option aggregate-size 128KB
option flush-behind on
subvolumes iocache
end-volume
I am confusing this result .I don't have idea how to trace and get good comparable result is read performance .I think I am miss understanding the buffer cache concepts .
From attached NFS read result , I understand that I have 348MB RAM and I am doing the benchmark file size rage 128KB to 1GB .So up to file size 256MB I am getting buffer cache performance and file size 512MB ,1GB I am getting with in link speed .But in case of GlusterFS I not able to understand what is happening .
Please any one can help me .
Thanks for your time
Mohan
Attachment:
nfsread_Vs_GlusterFSread.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
