Hi Marko, Thanks for the document. Do you have glusterfs log files taken while performing these benchmarks? regards, On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Marko <gluster at sopca.com> wrote: > Hi, > this document is made for my personal reference so it's a little raw. > > regards > > > Raghavendra G wrote: > > Hi Marko, > > The option disable-for-first-nbytes disables write behind for the first n > bytes written, where n is the value of the option. > > Also, Can you please send the benmark results for the tests you carried > out? > > regards, > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Marko <gluster at sopca.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> To clearify: >> * im testing with gluisterfs-2.0.0rc7 >> * all bricks are on same physical server(Xen guests). It's a testing >> environment. >> >> These are a few benchmarks I've done so far: >> * time make-many-files #(this is slightly modified version that I've >> found here:http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/make-many-files.c) >> * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=8 count=128000 of=file1MB.bin #(effectively >> creates lots of small consecutive fops) >> * time dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=25000 of=file100MB.bin #(creates >> optimal transactions from HDDs physical point of view. I have best results >> here with all configurations) >> * time cp -a 0 1 2 /tmp #(/tmp is mounted as tmpfs; 0 1 2 are >> directories created by "make-many-files" ) >> * time rm 0 1 2 -fr >> >> I wish GlusterFS team provided simmilar set of tests so one can measure >> his performance in a way that can be compared to results from others. I >> think it would be a great value to all GlusterFS users and developers. I >> think that to create basic set of these tests is a trivial task( maybe just >> use mine :D ). >> >> Below I attached my configuration. Without write-back translator I get >> better results in most of the tests. >> I can't understand why write-back has such a bad impact on >> performance(being a performance *booster*). >> I've also noticed that TCP packets are much lower than MTU in first >> benchmark. Meaning write-back doesn't optimize writes. >> Can you explain that? >> Can someone help me to get high performance with AFR? >> >> Regards, >> Marko >> >> >> #------------- configuration --------------------- >> ########## server ########################### >> volume posix-brick >> type storage/posix >> option directory /srv/gluster >> end-volume >> >> volume lock-brick >> type features/posix-locks >> subvolumes posix-brick >> option mandatory-locks on >> end-volume >> >> volume server >> type protocol/server >> option transport-type tcp/server >> subvolumes lock-brick >> option auth.addr.lock-brick.allow * >> end-volume >> >> >> >> ########## client ########################### >> >> volume brick1 >> type protocol/client >> option transport-type tcp >> option remote-host gluster-host1 >> option remote-subvolume lock-brick >> end-volume >> >> volume brick2 >> type protocol/client >> option transport-type tcp >> option remote-host gluster-host2 >> option remote-subvolume lock-brick >> end-volume >> >> volume AFR >> type cluster/replicate >> subvolumes brick1 brick2 >> end-volume >> >> volume wb >> type performance/write-behind >> subvolumes AFR >> option flush-behind on >> option window-size 1MB >> option aggregate-size 512KB >> end-volume >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > > > > -- > Raghavendra G > > > -- Raghavendra G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://zresearch.com/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090414/a630bfa4/attachment.htm>
