Hi Ben,
That means if i will not attach the SSD in to brick...even not install glusterfs on the server...it gives me throughput about 300mb/s but once i will install glusterfs and add this ssd in to glusterfs volume it gives me 16 mb/s...
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ben Turner <bturner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Punit Dambiwal" <hypunit@xxxxxxxxx>
What does this mean then? Running directly on the brick to me means running directly on the SSD. The command below is the same thing as above, what changed?> To: "Ben Turner" <bturner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>, gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 9:36:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Glusterfs performance tweaks
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> But without glusterfs if i run the same command with dsync on the same
> ssd...it gives me good throughput...all setup (CPU,RAM,Network are same)
> the only difference is no glusterfs...
>
> [root@cpu09 mnt]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> 4096+0 records in
> 4096+0 records out
> 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 0.935646 s, 287 MB/s
> [root@cpu09 mnt]#
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> But on the top of the glusterfs it gives too slow performance....i run the
> ssd trim every night to clean the garbage collection...i think there is
> something need to do from gluster or OS side to improve the
> performance....otherwise no use to use the ALL SSD with gluster because
> with all SSD you will get the performance slower then SATA....
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Ben Turner <bturner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Punit Dambiwal" <hypunit@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:55:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Glusterfs performance tweaks
> > >
> > > Hi Vijay,
> > >
> > > If i run the same command directly on the brick...
-b
> > >
> > > [root@cpu01 1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> > > 4096+0 records in
> > > 4096+0 records out
> > > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 16.8022 s, 16.0 MB/s
> > > [root@cpu01 1]# pwd
> > > /bricks/1
> > > [root@cpu01 1]#
> > >
> >
> > This is your problem. Gluster is only as fast as its slowest piece, and
> > here your storage is the bottleneck. Being that you get 16 MB to the brick
> > and 12 to gluster that works out to about 25% overhead which is what I
> > would expect with a single thread, single brick, single client scenario.
> > This may have something to do with the way SSDs write? On my SSD at my
> > desk I only get 11.4 MB / sec when I run that DD command:
> >
> > # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> > 4096+0 records in
> > 4096+0 records out
> > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 23.065 s, 11.4 MB/s
> >
> > My thought is that maybe using dsync is forcing the SSD to clean the data
> > or something else before writing to it:
> >
> > http://www.blog.solidstatediskshop.com/2012/how-does-an-ssd-write/
> >
> > Do your drives support fstrim? It may be worth it to trim before you run
> > and see what results you get. Other than tuning the SSD / OS to perform
> > better on the back end there isn't much we can do from the gluster
> > perspective on that specific DD w/ the dsync flag.
> >
> > -b
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vijay Bellur < vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 04/08/2015 02:57 PM, Punit Dambiwal wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am getting very slow throughput in the glusterfs (dead slow...even
> > > SATA is better) ... i am using all SSD in my environment.....
> > >
> > > I have the following setup :-
> > > A. 4* host machine with Centos 7(Glusterfs 3.6.2 | Distributed
> > > Replicated | replica=2)
> > > B. Each server has 24 SSD as bricks…(Without HW Raid | JBOD)
> > > C. Each server has 2 Additional ssd for OS…
> > > D. Network 2*10G with bonding…(2*E5 CPU and 64GB RAM)
> > >
> > > Note :- Performance/Throughput slower then Normal SATA 7200 RPM…even i
> > > am using all SSD in my ENV..
> > >
> > > Gluster Volume options :-
> > >
> > > +++++++++++++++
> > > Options Reconfigured:
> > > performance.nfs.write-behind- window-size: 1024MB
> > > performance.io-thread-count: 32
> > > performance.cache-size: 1024MB
> > > cluster.quorum-type: auto
> > > cluster.server-quorum-type: server
> > > diagnostics.count-fop-hits: on
> > > diagnostics.latency- measurement: on
> > > nfs.disable: on
> > > user.cifs: enable
> > > auth.allow: *
> > > performance.quick-read: off
> > > performance.read-ahead: off
> > > performance.io-cache: off
> > > performance.stat-prefetch: off
> > > cluster.eager-lock: enable
> > > network.remote-dio: enable
> > > storage.owner-uid: 36
> > > storage.owner-gid: 36
> > > server.allow-insecure: on
> > > network.ping-timeout: 0
> > > diagnostics.brick-log-level: INFO
> > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > Test with SATA and Glusterfs SSD….
> > > ———————
> > > Dell EQL (SATA disk 7200 RPM)
> > > —-
> > > [root@mirror ~]#
> > > 4096+0 records in
> > > 4096+0 records out
> > > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 20.7763 s, 12.9 MB/s
> > > [root@mirror ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> > > 4096+0 records in
> > > 4096+0 records out
> > > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 23.5947 s, 11.4 MB/s
> > >
> > > GlsuterFS SSD
> > > —
> > > [root@sv-VPN1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> > > 4096+0 records in
> > > 4096+0 records out
> > > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 66.2572 s, 4.1 MB/s
> > > [root@sv-VPN1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
> > > 4096+0 records in
> > > 4096+0 records out
> > > 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 62.6922 s, 4.3 MB/s
> > > ————————
> > >
> > > Please let me know what i should do to improve the performance of my
> > > glusterfs…
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the throughput that you get when you run these commands on the
> > disks
> > > directly without gluster in the picture?
> > >
> > > By running dd with dsync you are ensuring that there is no buffering
> > anywhere
> > > in the stack and that is the reason why low throughput is being observed.
> > >
> > > -Vijay
> > >
> > > -Vijay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gluster-users mailing list
> > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> >
>
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
