Stephan is correct- I primarily did this test to show a demonstrable overhead example that I'm trying to eliminate. It's pronounced enough that it can be seen on a single disk / single node configuration, which is good in a way (so anyone can easily repro). My distributed/clustered solution would be ideal if it were fast enough for small block i/o as well as large block- I was hoping that single node systems would achieve that, hence the single node test. Because the single node test performed poorly, I eventually reduced down to single disk to see if it could still be seen, and it clearly can be. Perhaps it's something in my configuration? I've pasted my config files below. thx- Jeremy ######################glusterfsd.vol###################### volume posix type storage/posix option directory /export end-volume volume locks type features/locks subvolumes posix end-volume volume disk type performance/io-threads option thread-count 4 subvolumes locks end-volume volume server-ib type protocol/server option transport-type ib-verbs/server option auth.addr.disk.allow * subvolumes disk end-volume volume server-tcp type protocol/server option transport-type tcp/server option auth.addr.disk.allow * subvolumes disk end-volume ######################ghome.vol###################### #-----------IB remotes------------------ volume ghome type protocol/client option transport-type ib-verbs/client # option transport-type tcp/client option remote-host acfs option remote-subvolume raid end-volume #------------Performance Options------------------- volume readahead type performance/read-ahead option page-count 4 # 2 is default option option force-atime-update off # default is off subvolumes ghome end-volume volume writebehind type performance/write-behind option cache-size 1MB subvolumes readahead end-volume volume cache type performance/io-cache option cache-size 1GB subvolumes writebehind end-volume ######################END###################### On 3/23/2010 6:02 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:59:35 -0600 (CST) > "Tejas N. Bhise"<tejas at gluster.com> wrote: > > >> Out of curiosity, if you want to do stuff only on one machine, >> why do you want to use a distributed, multi node, clustered, >> file system ? >> > Because what he does is a very good way to show the overhead produced only by > glusterfs and nothing else (i.e. no network involved). > A pretty relevant test scenario I would say. > > -- > Regards, > Stephan > > > >> Am I missing something here ? >> >> Regards, >> Tejas. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeremy Enos"<jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu> >> To: gluster-users at gluster.org >> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:07:06 PM GMT +05:30 Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi >> Subject: gluster local vs local = gluster x4 slower >> >> This test is pretty easy to replicate anywhere- only takes 1 disk, one >> machine, one tarball. Untarring to local disk directly vs thru gluster >> is about 4.5x faster. At first I thought this may be due to a slow host >> (Opteron 2.4ghz). But it's not- same configuration, on a much faster >> machine (dual 3.33ghz Xeon) yields the performance below. >> >> ####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK THRU GLUSTER#### >> [root at ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz >> >> real 0m41.290s >> user 0m14.246s >> sys 0m2.957s >> >> ####THIS TEST WAS TO A LOCAL DISK (BYPASS GLUSTER)#### >> [root at ac33 jenos]# cd /export/jenos/ >> [root at ac33 jenos]# time tar xzf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz >> >> real 0m8.983s >> user 0m6.857s >> sys 0m1.844s >> >> ####THESE ARE TEST FILE DETAILS#### >> [root at ac33 jenos]# tar tzvf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz |wc -l >> 109 >> [root at ac33 jenos]# ls -l >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz >> -rw-r--r-- 1 jenos ac 804385203 2010-02-07 06:32 >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz >> [root at ac33 jenos]# >> >> These are the relevant performance options I'm using in my .vol file: >> >> #------------Performance Options------------------- >> >> volume readahead >> type performance/read-ahead >> option page-count 4 # 2 is default option >> option force-atime-update off # default is off >> subvolumes ghome >> end-volume >> >> volume writebehind >> type performance/write-behind >> option cache-size 1MB >> subvolumes readahead >> end-volume >> >> volume cache >> type performance/io-cache >> option cache-size 1GB >> subvolumes writebehind >> end-volume >> >> What can I do to improve gluster's performance? >> >> Jeremy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > >