It is fuse 2.8.0-pre3 that I tried with the patch you mentioned. When I tested I used 1M block sizes for a count of 100 and got 1.4MB/s when that was done over NFS. That was using both standard NFS with direct-io disabled and unfs3 with direct-io enabled. The same test of 1M blocks for a count of 100 made for 45MB/s on the same filesystem, but the local gluster mount instead of over NFS. When using NFS to one of the same machines as well, but local-disk mount I get around 50MB/s. Justice London E-mail: jlondon at lawinfo.com _____ From: harshavardhanacool at gmail.com [mailto:harshavardhanacool at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Harshavardhana Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:22 PM To: Justice London Cc: Anand Avati; gluster-users Subject: Re: Gluster (2.0.1 -> git) with fuse 2.8 crashes NFS Justice, which is the libfuse version being used with glusterfs?. Just wanted to know what are the metrics you observed while testing?, block size in which writes/read were measured during testing?. etc, Regards -- Harshavardhana Z Research Inc http://www.zresearch.com/ On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Justice London <jlondon at lawinfo.com> wrote: Well, mostly it seems to be on the throughput. I haven't really measured for metadata improvements yet. Of note, is that NFS is now working, but it appears to be EXTREMELY slow. I was only able to manage about 1-2MB/s Justice London E-mail: jlondon at lawinfo.com -----Original Message----- From: anand.avati at gmail.com [mailto:anand.avati at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anand Avati Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:02 PM To: Justice London Cc: gluster-users; Harshavardhana Subject: Re: Gluster (2.0.1 -> git) with fuse 2.8 crashes NFS > The 2.0.3 release of gluster appears so far to have fixed the crash issue I > was experiencing. What was the specific patch that fixed for it I was > wondering? It was http://patches.gluster.com/patch/664/. A less ugly fix is lined up for 2.1 > Great job either way! It appears that with fuse 2.8 and newer kernels that > gluster absolutely flies. With a replication environment between two crummy > testbed machines it's probably about twice as fast as 2.7.4 based fuse! Just curious, are the observed performance improvements in terms of IO throughput or metadata latency? Avati Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.8/2224 - Release Date: 07/08/09 05:53:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.8/2227 - Release Date: 07/09/09 05:55:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://zresearch.com/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090710/61085101/attachment.htm>
