Hello,
Here is some speedtest with a new setup we just made with gluster 3.10, there are no other differences, except glusterfs versus nfs. The nfs is about 80 times faster:
root@app1:~/smallfile-master# mount -t glusterfs -o use-readdirp=no,log-level=WARNING,log-file=/var/log/glusterxxx.log 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www
root@app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 500 --file-size 64 --record-size 64
smallfile version 3.0
hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41']
top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test']
operation : cleanup
files/thread : 500
threads : 8
record size (KB, 0 = maximum) : 64
file size (KB) : 64
file size distribution : fixed
files per dir : 100
dirs per dir : 10
threads share directories? : N
filename prefix :
filename suffix :
hash file number into dir.? : N
fsync after modify? : N
pause between files (microsec) : 0
finish all requests? : Y
stonewall? : Y
measure response times? : N
verify read? : Y
verbose? : False
log to stderr? : False
ext.attr.size : 0
ext.attr.count : 0
permute host directories? : N
remote program directory : /root/smallfile-master
network thread sync. dir. : /var/www/test/network_shared
starting all threads by creating starting gate file /var/www/test/network_shared/starting_gate.tmp
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 00,elapsed = 68.845450,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 01,elapsed = 67.601088,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 02,elapsed = 58.677994,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 03,elapsed = 65.901922,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 04,elapsed = 66.971720,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 05,elapsed = 71.245102,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 06,elapsed = 67.574845,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 07,elapsed = 54.263242,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
total threads = 8
total files = 4000
100.00% of requested files processed, minimum is 70.00
71.245102 sec elapsed time
56.144211 files/sec
umount /var/www
root@app1:~/smallfile-master# mount -t nfs -o tcp 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www
root@app1:~/smallfile-master# ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41 --threads 8 --files 500 --file-size 64 --record-size 64
smallfile version 3.0
hosts in test : ['192.168.140.41']
top test directory(s) : ['/var/www/test']
operation : cleanup
files/thread : 500
threads : 8
record size (KB, 0 = maximum) : 64
file size (KB) : 64
file size distribution : fixed
files per dir : 100
dirs per dir : 10
threads share directories? : N
filename prefix :
filename suffix :
hash file number into dir.? : N
fsync after modify? : N
pause between files (microsec) : 0
finish all requests? : Y
stonewall? : Y
measure response times? : N
verify read? : Y
verbose? : False
log to stderr? : False
ext.attr.size : 0
ext.attr.count : 0
permute host directories? : N
remote program directory : /root/smallfile-master
network thread sync. dir. : /var/www/test/network_shared
starting all threads by creating starting gate file /var/www/test/network_shared/starting_gate.tmp
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 00,elapsed = 0.962424,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 01,elapsed = 0.942673,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 02,elapsed = 0.940622,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 03,elapsed = 0.915218,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 04,elapsed = 0.934349,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 05,elapsed = 0.922466,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 06,elapsed = 0.954381,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
host = 192.168.140.41,thr = 07,elapsed = 0.946127,files = 500,records = 0,status = ok
total threads = 8
total files = 4000
100.00% of requested files processed, minimum is 70.00
0.962424 sec elapsed time
4156.173189 files/sec
-----Original message-----
From: Jo Goossens <jo.goossens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue 11-07-2017 11:26
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs
To: gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx; Soumya Koduri <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx>;
CC: Ambarish Soman <asoman@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Hi all,
One more thing, we have 3 apps servers with the gluster on it, replicated on 3 different gluster nodes. (So the gluster nodes are app servers at the same time). We could actually almost work locally if we wouldn't need to have the same files on the 3 nodes and redundancy :)
Initial cluster was created like this:
gluster volume create www replica 3 transport tcp 192.168.140.41:/gluster/www 192.168.140.42:/gluster/www 192.168.140.43:/gluster/www forcegluster volume set www network.ping-timeout 5gluster volume set www performance.cache-size 1024MBgluster volume set www nfs.disable on # No need for NFS currentlygluster volume start wwwTo my understanding it still wouldn't explain why nfs has such great performance compared to native ...
Regards
Jo
-----Original message-----
From: Soumya Koduri <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue 11-07-2017 11:16
Subject: Re: Gluster native mount is really slow compared to nfs
To: Jo Goossens <jo.goossens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx;
CC: Ambarish Soman <asoman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Karan Sandha <ksandha@xxxxxxxxxx>;
+ Ambarish
On 07/11/2017 02:31 PM, Jo Goossens wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> We tried tons of settings to get a php app running on a native gluster
> mount:
>
>
>
> e.g.: 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www glusterfs
> defaults,_netdev,backup-volfile-servers=192.168.140.42:192.168.140.43,direct-io-mode=disable
> 0 0
>
>
>
> I tried some mount variants in order to speed up things without luck.
>
>
>
>
>
> After that I tried nfs (native gluster nfs 3 and ganesha nfs 4), it was
> a crazy performance difference.
>
>
>
> e.g.: 192.168.140.41:/www /var/www nfs4 defaults,_netdev 0 0
>
>
>
> I tried a test like this to confirm the slowness:
>
>
>
> ./smallfile_cli.py --top /var/www/test --host-set 192.168.140.41
> --threads 8 --files 5000 --file-size 64 --record-size 64
>
> This test finished in around 1.5 seconds with NFS and in more than 250
> seconds without nfs (can't remember exact numbers, but I reproduced it
> several times for both).
>
> With the native gluster mount the php app had loading times of over 10
> seconds, with the nfs mount the php app loaded around 1 second maximum
> and even less. (reproduced several times)
>
>
>
> I tried all kind of performance settings and variants of this but not
> helped , the difference stayed huge, here are some of the settings
> played with in random order:
>
Request Ambarish & Karan (cc'ed who have been working on evaluating
performance of various access protocols gluster supports) to look at the
below settings and provide inputs.
Thanks,
Soumya
>
>
> gluster volume set www features.cache-invalidation on
> gluster volume set www features.cache-invalidation-timeout 600
> gluster volume set www performance.stat-prefetch on
> gluster volume set www performance.cache-samba-metadata on
> gluster volume set www performance.cache-invalidation on
> gluster volume set www performance.md-cache-timeout 600
> gluster volume set www network.inode-lru-limit 250000
>
> gluster volume set www performance.cache-refresh-timeout 60
> gluster volume set www performance.read-ahead disable
> gluster volume set www performance.readdir-ahead on
> gluster volume set www performance.parallel-readdir on
> gluster volume set www performance.write-behind-window-size 4MB
> gluster volume set www performance.io-thread-count 64
>
> gluster volume set www performance.client-io-threads on
>
> gluster volume set www performance.cache-size 1GB
> gluster volume set www performance.quick-read on
> gluster volume set www performance.flush-behind on
> gluster volume set www performance.write-behind on
> gluster volume set www nfs.disable on
>
> gluster volume set www client.event-threads 3
> gluster volume set www server.event-threads 3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The NFS ha adds a lot of complexity which we wouldn't need at all in our
> setup, could you please explain what is going on here? Is NFS the only
> solution to get acceptable performance? Did I miss one crucial settting
> perhaps?
>
>
>
> We're really desperate, thanks a lot for your help!
>
>
>
>
>
> PS: We tried with gluster 3.11 and 3.8 on Debian, both had terrible
> performance when not used with nfs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jo Goossens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
