Re: Multiple NFS Servers (Gluster NFS in 3.x, unfsd, knfsd, etc.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Gordan Bobic wrote:

With native NFS there'll be no need to first mount a glusterFS
FUSE based volume and then export it as NFS. The way it has been developed is that
any glusterfs volume in the volfile can be exported using NFS by adding
an NFS volume over it in the volfile. This is something that will become
clearer from the sample vol files when 3.0.1 comes out.

It may be worth checking the performance of that solution vs the performance of the standalone unfsd unbound to portmap/mountd over mounted glfs volumes, as I discovered today that the performance feels very similar to native knfsd and server-side AFR, but without the fuse.ko complications of the former and the buggyness of the latter (e.g. see bug 186: http://bugs.gluster.com/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=186 - that bug has been driving me nuts since before 2.0.0 was released)

I'd hate to see this be another wasted effort like booster when there is a solution that already works.

The answer to your question is, yes, it will be possible to export your
local file system with knfsd and glusterfs distributed-replicated volumes
with Gluster NFS translator BUT not in the first release.

See comment above. Isn't that all the more reason to double check performance figures before even bothering?

In fact, I may have just convinced myself to acquire some iozone performance figures. Will report later.

OK, I couldn't get iozone to report sane results. glfs was reporting things in the reasonable ball park I'd expect (between 7MB/s and 110MB/s which is what I'd expect on gigabit ethernet). NFS was reporting figures that look more like the memory bandwidth so I'd guess that FS-Cache was taking over. With O_DIRECT and O_SYNC figures were in the 700KB/s range for NFS which is clearly not sane because in actual use the two seem fairly equivalent.

So - I did a redneck test instead - dd 64MB of /dev/zero to a file on the mounted partition.

On writes, NFS gets 4.4MB/s, GlusterFS (server side AFR) gets 4.6MB/s. Pretty even. On reads GlusterFS gets 117MB/s, NFS gets 119MB/s (on the first read after flushing the caches, after that it goes up to 600MB/s). The difference in the unbuffered readings seems to be in the sane ball park and the difference on the reads is roughly what I'd expect considering NFS is running UDP and GLFS is running TCP.

So in conclusion - there is no performance difference between them worth speaking of. So what is the point in implementing a user-space NFS handler in glusterfsd when unfsd seems to do the job as well as glusterfsd could reasonably hope to?

There is, however a problem iozone showed up - it wouldn't complete on glfs. The glusterfs client would cause it to error out before it finished. iozone would report errors like this:

Error writing block 2047, fd= 3
write: Transport endpoint is not connected

Error writing block 2047, fd= 3
write: File descriptor in bad state

Error writing block 2047, fd= 3
write: File descriptor in bad state



/home/gordan/test/f1: Transport endpoint is not connected
/home/gordan/test/f2: Transport endpoint is not connected
/home/gordan/test/f3: Transport endpoint is not connected
/home/gordan/test/f4: Transport endpoint is not connected


On the client, the logs show things like this:


[2010-01-06 21:42:30] E [client-protocol.c:457:client_ping_timer_expired] home: Server 10.2.0.10:7000 has not responded in the last
10 seconds, disconnecting.
[2010-01-06 21:42:30] E [saved-frames.c:165:saved_frames_unwind] home: forced unwinding frame type(1) op(FSYNC) [2010-01-06 21:42:30] W [fuse-bridge.c:888:fuse_err_cbk] glusterfs-fuse: 269780: FSYNC() ERR => -1 (Transport endpoint is not connec
ted)


Followed by lots of this:

[2010-01-06 21:46:39] W [fuse-bridge.c:1540:fuse_writev_cbk] glusterfs-fuse: 532985: WRITE => -1 (Transport endpoint is not connecte
d)

and this:

[2010-01-06 21:53:41] W [fuse-bridge.c:888:fuse_err_cbk] glusterfs-fuse: 537456: FLUSH() ERR => -1 (File descriptor in bad state)

glfs seems to be rather fragile when load starts approaching wire speed. My ssh sessions running top to the same machine didn't disconnect or show any noticeable lag, so the disconnections are probably uncalled for - there ought to be a more graceful way to deal with it. How often does it send heartbeat packets and how many in a row have to go missing before it decided to disconnect?

Another thing I noticed is that even though the server glusterfs process was running with it's server side AFR export, the first time I tried to connect to it from the client after some hours of using the NFS mount, the server process appears to have crashed. This was what ended up in it's log:


[2010-01-06 21:35:54] N [server-protocol.c:7065:mop_setvolume] server-home: accepted client from 10.2.3.1:1023 [2010-01-06 21:35:54] N [server-protocol.c:7065:mop_setvolume] server-home: accepted client from 10.2.3.1:1022
pending frames:
frame : type(1) op(LOOKUP)
frame : type(1) op(LK)

patchset: v2.0.9
signal received: 11
time of crash: 2010-01-06 21:36:12
configuration details:
argp 1
backtrace 1
db.h 1
dlfcn 1
fdatasync 1
libpthread 1
llistxattr 1
setfsid 1
spinlock 1
epoll.h 1
xattr.h 1
st_atim.tv_nsec 1
package-string: glusterfs 2.0.9
/lib64/libc.so.6[0x3f55e302d0]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/protocol/client.so(client_lookup+0xc8)[0x2afea8f89438]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/cluster/replicate.so(afr_lookup+0x226)[0x2afea97e3e66]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/protocol/server.so(server_lookup_cbk+0x513)[0x2afea95cb2a3]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/cluster/replicate.so(afr_self_heal_cbk+0x8e)[0x2afea97e46fe]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/cluster/replicate.so(afr_sh_data_done+0xbe)[0x2afea97f8bce]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/cluster/replicate.so(afr_sh_data_flush_cbk+0x44)[0x2afea97fa284]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/cluster/replicate.so(afr_sh_data_utimes_cbk+0x9)[0x2afea97fa2a9]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/protocol/client.so(client_utimens_cbk+0x14e)[0x2afea8f9152e]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/protocol/client.so(protocol_client_pollin+0xca)[0x2afea8f808aa]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/xlator/protocol/client.so(notify+0x212)[0x2afea8f874e2]
/usr/lib64/glusterfs/2.0.9/transport/socket.so(socket_event_handler+0xd3)[0x2aaaaaaafe33]
/usr/lib64/libglusterfs.so.0[0x3f56a27115]
/usr/sbin/glusterfs(main+0xa06)[0x403e96]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf4)[0x3f55e1d994]
/usr/sbin/glusterfs[0x402509]
---------

None of the above went wrong when using the unfsd mount - and that really doesn't look very confidence inspiring in a stable release (2.0.9).

Gordan




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux