Re: glfs vs. unfsd performance figures

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

 



On 08/01/2010 21:15, Martin Fick wrote:
--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Gordan Bobic<gordan@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
...
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.

...

# The machines involved are quad core
time make -j8 all

1) pure ext3
6:40    CPU bound
2) ext3
     15:15    rootfs (glfs, no
cache) I/O bound
3) ext3+knfsd
7:02    mostly network bound
4) ext3+unfsd        16:04
5) glfs
     61:54    rootfs (glfs, no
cache) I/O bound
6) glfs+cache
32:32    rootfs (glfs, no cache) I/O bound
7) glfs+unfsd        278:30
8) glfs+cache+unfsd    189:15
9) glfs+cache+glfs    186:43

Am I understanding correctly that all the glfs benchmarks are
using AFR? If so, perhaps that is not a very useful comparison
since the AFR locking might be your bottleneck with a make?
If so, it would then not highlight any potential differences
between your nfs server and pure glfs setup.  I think it
would be more useful to remove AFR from the picture to get
a real idea,

I would guess that the key reason for performance deterioration vs bare metal is fuse rather than AFR. In all cases, the slave server should only be getting writes.

The ext3 tests are there purely as reference points and to get some idea of difference in performance between knfsd and unfsd.

The difference between tests 5 and 7, however, is relevant because all of that difference (all 400% of it) comes from having the extra hop between the client and the server, since in both cases the underlying glfs setup is the same.

However, the main point I wanted to get to the bottom of was whether using glfs for the server<->client connection has any benefit over unfsd, and the test quite clearly shows that it doesn't (there is no real difference between results of tests 8 and 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