One more thought, looks like (from your emails) you are always running the gluster test first. Maybe the tar file is being read from disk when you do the gluster test, then being read from cache when you run for the disk. What if you just pull a chunk of 0's off /dev/zero? dd bs=4096 count=32768 if=/dev/zero of=./filename.test or stick the tar in a ramdisk? (or run the benchmark 10 times for each, drop the best and the worse, and average the remaining 8) Would also be curious if you add another node if the time would be halved, then add another 2... then it would be halved again? I guess that depends on if striping or just replicating is being used. (unfortunately I don't have access to more than 1 test box right now). On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Enos <jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote: > For completeness: > > ##############GLUSTER SINGLE DISK NO PERFORMANCE OPTIONS############## > [root at ac33 gjenos]# time (tar xzf > /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz && sync ) > > real ? ?0m41.052s > user ? ?0m7.705s > sys ? ? 0m3.122s > ##############DIRECT SINGLE DISK############## > [root at ac33 gjenos]# cd /export/jenos > [root at ac33 jenos]# time (tar xzf > /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz && sync ) > > real ? ?0m22.093s > user ? ?0m6.932s > sys ? ? 0m2.459s > [root at ac33 jenos]# > > The performance options don't appear to be the problem. ?So the question > stands- how do I get the disk cache advantage through the Gluster mounted > filesystem? ?It seems to be key in the large performance difference. > > ? ?Jeremy > > On 3/24/2010 4:47 PM, Jeremy Enos wrote: >> >> Good suggestion- I hadn't tried that yet. ?It brings them much closer. >> >> ##############GLUSTER SINGLE DISK############## >> [root at ac33 gjenos]# time (tar xzf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz && sync ) >> >> real ? ?0m32.089s >> user ? ?0m6.516s >> sys ? ? 0m3.177s >> ##############DIRECT SINGLE DISK############## >> [root at ac33 gjenos]# cd /export/jenos/ >> [root at ac33 jenos]# time (tar xzf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz && sync ) >> >> real ? ?0m25.089s >> user ? ?0m6.850s >> sys ? ? 0m2.058s >> ##############DIRECT SINGLE DISK CACHED############## >> [root at ac33 jenos]# time (tar xzf >> /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz ) >> >> real ? ?0m8.955s >> user ? ?0m6.785s >> sys ? ? 0m1.848s >> >> >> Oddly, I'm seeing better performance on the gluster system than previous >> tests too (used to be ~39 s). ?The direct disk time is obviously benefiting >> from cache. ?There is still a difference, but it appears most of the >> difference disappears w/ the cache advantage removed. ?That said- the >> relative performance issue then still exists with Gluster. ?What can be done >> to make it benefit from cache the same way direct disk does? >> thx- >> >> ? ?Jeremy >> >> P.S. >> I'll be posting results w/ performance options completely removed from >> gluster as soon as I get a chance. >> >> ? ?Jeremy >> >> On 3/24/2010 4:23 PM, Bryan Whitehead wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to see results with this: >>> >>> time ( tar xzf /scratch/jenos/intel/l_cproc_p_11.1.064_intel64.tgz&& >>> ?sync ) >>> >>> I've found local filesystems seem to use cache very heavily. The >>> untarred file could mostly be sitting in ram with local fs vs going >>> though fuse (which might do many more sync'ed flushes to disk?). >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Jeremy Enos<jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu> ?wrote: >>>> >>>> I also neglected to mention that the underlying filesystem is ext3. >>>> >>>> On 3/24/2010 3:44 AM, Jeremy Enos wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I haven't tried all performance options disabled yet- I can try that >>>>> tomorrow when the resource frees up. ?I was actually asking first >>>>> before >>>>> blindly trying different configuration matrices in case there's a clear >>>>> direction I should take with it. ?I'll let you know. >>>>> >>>>> ? ?Jeremy >>>>> >>>>> On 3/24/2010 2:54 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>>>> >>>>>> have you tried to reproduce with all performance options disabled? >>>>>> They >>>>>> are >>>>>> possibly no good idea on a local system. >>>>>> What local fs do you use? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Stephan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:11:28 -0500 >>>>>> Jeremy Enos<jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu> ? ?wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >
