Hello, These benchmarks were not testing the Gluster / KVM native integration patch. The benchmarks were testing performance of qcow2 files running on Gluster volumes. I just wanted to clear that up. Thanks, Joe On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Andrei Mikhailovsky <andrei at arhont.com>wrote: > Guys, do you know if this patch supports glusterfs over rdma? > > I am running glusterfs over infiniband and kvm performance is so nasty. As > an example, I get around 600-800 mb/s for read/write on the glusterfs > partition mounted on kvm server. However, vms stored on this partition can > only read/write around 40-50mb/s. I would love to try this patch if there > is rdma support. > > Thanks > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Joe Topjian" <joe at topjian.net> > *To: *gluster-users at gluster.org > *Sent: *Wednesday, 5 September, 2012 6:47:09 AM > *Subject: *Gluster / KVM Filesystem Benchmarks > > > Hello, > > I did a few filesystem benchmarks with Gluster (3.3) and KVM using iozone > and have compiled a spreadsheet with the results: > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6GzZufzohwFZmozTFRSSHk5T0E > > Just a heads up: It is an Excel spreadsheet. > > All of the details that were used to generate the results are described in > the spreadsheet. Of most interest would be the second tab titled "Gluster". > The results that do not have "vm" in the description were iozone procs > running directly on a mounted replicated Gluster volume (2 bricks). The > "vm" results are iozone procs running in KVM virtual machines stored in > qcow2 files. > > The first tab, General, is just some simple non-Gluster benchmarks that I > ran for comparison. > > The third tab, Gluster old, was me doing iozone benchmarks on files with > sizes ranging from 8mb to 512mb. I noticed that there was very little > difference in the results so I decided to work with only 128mb and 256mb > sized files. > > If you do not have access to Excel or something compatible, you can still > view most of the information in the Google Doc. Here is a jpeg image of the > main graph that was generated: > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6GzZufzohwFWGtFS3I5UEllTkU > > Questions I have: > > * The "optimized settings" that I used were pulled from a Gluster > Performance Tuning presentation. It doesn't look like the settings did very > much in terms of optimization. Can someone comment on these settings? Are > there better settings to use? > > * I'm a bit confused at how the KVM / qcow2 reads are much higher than the > reads directly on the Gluster volume. Any idea why that is? > > * I ran all tests with the cache-io translator on and off. Like the > "optimized settings", it wasn't of much use. Did I use this incorrectly? > > * The reason I did all tests with 128mb and 256mb sized files was to > highlight the very bizarre trait where certain increments (16, 64, 256) > gave very poor results while increments such as 8, 32, and 128 had good > results. Any idea why that is? > > * Can anyone comment on if these results are of any use? Or are the stats > I collect and the way I collected them incorrect? > > Please let me know if anyone has any questions or needs anything clarified. > > Thanks, > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120909/92445a5a/attachment.htm>
