Its not released yet, but it is in QA. You can download it here: http://ftp.gluster.com/pub/gluster/glusterfs/qa-releases/glusterfs-2.0.5.tar.gzor grab the newest git which has all the changes in it. liam On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul <somsaks at gmail.com>wrote: > Could you let me know when will this be (estimately). I can wait until > 2.0.5 and test it out again. > > 2009/7/30 Liam Slusser <lslusser at gmail.com> > > You might want to wait until 2.0.5 as there is a ton of bug fixes to >> booster in that release. >> >> Either way please let us know how it goes. >> >> ls >> >> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul <somsaks at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thank you very much for you reply >> >> At the time we used 2.0.3, and yes we used stock Apache from CentOS. I >> will try 2.0.4 very soon to see if it's work. >> >> For Booster, it seems not working correctly for me. Booster complains a >> lots of error with plain 'ls' command (but giving the correct output). Also, >> with booster, Apache process refuse to start. I will try 2.0.4 to see if it >> improves. If not, I will attach error log next time. >> >> >> 2009/7/30 Raghavendra G < <raghavendra at gluster.com> >> raghavendra at gluster.com> >> >>> Hi Somsak, >>> >>> Sorry for the delayed reply. Below you've mentioned that you've problems >>> with apache and booster. Going forward, Apache over booster will be the >>> preferred approach. Can you tell us what version of glusterfs you are using? >>> And as I can understand you are using apache 2.2, am I correct? >>> >>> regards, >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Liam Slusser" < <lslusser at gmail.com>lslusser at gmail.com> >>> To: "Somsak Sriprayoonsakul" < <somsaks at gmail.com>somsaks at gmail.com> >>> Cc: <gluster-users at gluster.org>gluster-users at gluster.org >>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:46:14 AM GMT +04:00 Abu Dhabi / Muscat >>> Subject: Re: Gluster 2.0.3 + Apache on CentOS5 >>> performance issue >>> >>> I haven't tried an apples to apples comparison with Apache+mod_gluster vs >>> Apache+fuse+gluster however i do run both setups. I load tested both >>> setups >>> so to verified it could handle 4x our normal daily load and left it at >>> that. >>> I didn't actually compare the two (although that might be cool to do >>> someday). >>> I really like the idea of Apache+mod_gluster as I don't have to deal with >>> the whole fuse and mounting the filesystem. It always scares me having a >>> public facing webserver with your whole backend fileshare mounted >>> locally. >>> Its very slick for serving content such as media files. We serve audio >>> content to our CDN with a pair of Apache/mod_gluster servers - pushing >>> 200-300mbit on average daily and everything works very well. >>> >>> We run an apache+fuse+gluster setup because we need to run some mod_perl >>> before serving the actual content. However performance is still very >>> good. >>> We do around 50-100 requests (all jpeg images) per second off of a fuse >>> mount and everything works great. We also have a java >>> tomcat+fuse+gluster >>> service which does image manipulation on the fly off of a gluster mount. >>> >>> We have two backend gluster servers using replication which serve all >>> this >>> content. >>> >>> If you would like more information on our setup id be happy to share >>> offline. Just email me privately. >>> >>> thanks, >>> liam >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul >>> < <somsaks at gmail.com>somsaks at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>> > Oh thank you, thought noone will reply me :) >>> > >>> > Have you tried Apache + Fuse over GlusterFS? How is the performance? >>> > >>> > Also, anyone in this mailing-list have tried Apache with booster? I >>> tried >>> > it but Apache refuse to start (just hang and freeze). >>> > >>> > 2009/7/23 Liam Slusser < <lslusser at gmail.com>lslusser at gmail.com> >>> > >>> > >>> >> We use mod_gluster and Apache >>> >> 2.2 with good results. We also ran into the same issue as you that we >>> ran out of memory past 150 threads even on a 8gig machine. We got around >>> this by compiling Apache using mpm-worker >>> >> (threads) instead of prefork - it uses 1/4 as much ram with the same >>> number >>> >> of connections (150-200) and everything has been running smoothly. I >>> cannot >>> >> see any performance difference except it using way less memory. >>> >> liam >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Somsak Sriprayoonsakul < >>> >> <somsaks at gmail.com>somsaks at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> We have been evaluating the choice for the new platform for a >>> webboard >>> >>> system. >>> >>> The webboard is PHP scripts that generate/modify HTML page when user >>> >>> posting/add comment to the page, resulting topic is actually stored >>> as a >>> >>> HTML file with all related file (file attach to the topic, etc.. >>> )stored in >>> >>> its own directory for each topic. In general, the web site mostly >>> serve a >>> >>> lot of small static files using Apache while using PHP to do other >>> dynamic >>> >>> contents. This system has been working very well in the past, with >>> the >>> >>> increasing page view rate, it is very likely that we will need some >>> kind of >>> >>> Cluster file system as backend very soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have set up a test system using Grinder as stress test tool. The >>> test >>> >>> system is 11 machines of Intel Dual Core x86_64 CentOS5 with stock >>> Apache >>> >>> (prefork, since the goal is to use this with PHP), linked together >>> with >>> >>> Gigabit Ethernet. We try to compare the performance of either using >>> single >>> >>> NFS server in sync mode against using 4 Gluster nodes (distribute of >>> 2 >>> >>> replicated nodes) through Fuse. However, the transaction per second >>> (TPS) >>> >>> result is not good. >>> >>> >>> >>> NFS (single server, sync mode) >>> >>> - 100 thread of client - Peak TPS = 1716.67, Avg. TPS = 1066, mean >>> >>> response time = 61.63 ms >>> >>> - 200 threads - Peak TPS = 2790, Avg. TPS = 1716, mean rt = 87.33 ms >>> >>> - 400 threads - Peak TPS = 3810, Avg. TPS = 1800, mean rt = 165ms >>> >>> - 600 threads - Peak TPS = 4506.67, Avg. TPS = 1676.67, mean rt = >>> >>> 287.33ms >>> >>> >>> >>> 4 nodes Gluster (2 distribute of replicated 2 node) >>> >>> - 100 thread - peak TPS = 1293.33, Avg. TPS = 430, mean rt = 207.33ms >>> >>> - 200 threads - Peak TPS = 974.67, Avg. TPS = 245.33, mean rt = >>> 672.67ms >>> >>> - 300 threads - Peak TPS = 861.33, Avg. TPS = 210, mean rt = 931.33 >>> >>> (no 400-600 threads since we run out of client machine, sorry). >>> >>> >>> >>> gfsd is configured to use 32 thread of iothread as brick. gfs-client >>> is >>> >>> configured to use >>> io-cache->write-behind->readahead->distribute->replicate. >>> >>> io-cache cache-size is 256MB. I used patched Fuse downloaded from >>> Gluster >>> >>> web-site (build through DKMS). >>> >>> >>> >>> As the result yield, it seems that Gluster performance worse with >>> >>> increasing no. of client. One observation is that the glusterfs >>> process on >>> >>> client is taking about 100% of CPU during all the tests. glusterfsd >>> is >>> >>> utilizing only 70-80% of CPUs during the test time. Note that system >>> is Dual >>> >>> core. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also tried using modglusterfs and not using fuse at all to serve >>> all >>> >>> the static files and conduct another test with Grinder. The result is >>> about >>> >>> the same, 1000+ peak TPS with 2-400 avg. TPS. A problem arise in this >>> test >>> >>> that each Apache prefork process used more about twice more memory >>> and we >>> >>> need to lower number of httpd processes by about half. >>> >>> >>> >>> I tried disable EnableMMAP and it didn't help much. Adjusting >>> readahead, >>> >>> write behind according to GlusterOptimization page didn't help much >>> either. >>> >>> >>> >>> My question is, there seems to be bottleneck in this setup, but how >>> can I >>> >>> track this? Note that, I didn't do any other optimization other than >>> what >>> >>> said above. Are there any best practice configuration for using >>> Apache to >>> >>> serve a bunch of small static files like this around? >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Somsak >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> >>> <Gluster-users at gluster.org>Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> >>> <http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> >>> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> <Gluster-users at gluster.org>Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> <http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> >>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >> >> >
