David, could you please cross-post your observations to the following bugreport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309462 ? It seems you have faced similar issue. On понеділок, 22 лютого 2016 р. 16:46:01 EET David Robinson wrote: > The 3.7.8 FUSE client is significantly slower than 3.7.6. Is this > related to some of the fixes that were done to correct memory leaks? Is > there anything that I can do to recover the performance of 3.7.6? > > My testing involved creating a "bigfile" that is 20GB. I then installed > the 3.6.6 FUSE client and tested the copy of the bigfile from one > gluster machine to another. The test was repeated 2x to make sure cache > wasn't affect performance. > > Using Centos7.1 > FUSE 3.6.6 took 47-seconds and 38-seconds. > FUSE 3.7.6 took 43-seconds and 34-seconds. > FUSE 3.7.8 took 205-seconds and 224-seconds > > I repeated the test on another machine that is running centos 6.7 and > the results were even worse. 98-seconds for FUSE 3.6.6 versus > 575-seconds for FUSE 3.7.8. > > My server setup is: > > Volume Name: gfsbackup > Type: Distribute > Volume ID: 29b8fae9-dfbf-4fa4-9837-8059a310669a > Status: Started > Number of Bricks: 2 > Transport-type: tcp > Bricks: > Brick1: ffib01bkp:/data/brick01/gfsbackup > Brick2: ffib01bkp:/data/brick02/gfsbackup > Options Reconfigured: > performance.readdir-ahead: on > cluster.rebal-throttle: aggressive > diagnostics.client-log-level: WARNING > diagnostics.brick-log-level: WARNING > changelog.changelog: off > client.event-threads: 8 > server.event-threads: 8 > > David > > > > ======================== > > > > David F. Robinson, Ph.D. > > President - Corvid Technologies > > 145 Overhill Drive > > Mooresville, NC 28117 > > 704.799.6944 x101 [Office] > > 704.252.1310 [Cell] > > 704.799.7974 [Fax] > > david.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.corvidtec.com _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
