Re: sparse files on EC volume

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Dmitri,

On 22/09/17 17:07, Dmitri Chebotarov wrote:

Hello

I'm running some tests to compare performance between Gluster FUSE mount and formated sparse files (located on the same Gluster FUSE mount).

The Gluster volume is EC (same for both tests).

I'm seeing HUGE difference and trying to figure out why.

Could you explain what hardware configuration are you using ?

Do you have a plain disk for each brick formatted in XFS, or do you have some RAID configuration ?


Here is an example:

GlusterFUSE mount:

# cd /mnt/glusterfs
# rm -f testfile1 ; dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile1 bs=1G count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.74757 s, *110 MB/s*

Sparse file (located on GlusterFUSE mount):

# truncate -l 100GB /mnt/glusterfs/xfs-100G.img
# mkfs.xfs /mnt/glusterfs/xfs-100G.img
# mount -o loop /mnt/glusterfs/xfs-100G.img /mnt/xfs-100G
# cd /mnt/xfs-100G
# rm -f testfile1 ; dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile1 bs=1G count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.20576 s, *891 MB/s*

The same goes for working with small files (i.e. code file, make, etc) with the same data located on FUSE mount vs formated sparse file on the same FUSE mount.

What would explain such difference?

First of all, doing tests with relatively small files tends to be misleading because of caching capacity of the operating system (to minimize that, you can add 'conv=fsync' option to dd). You should do tests with file sizes bigger than the amount of physical memory on servers. This way you minimize cache effects and see the real sustained performance.

A second important point to note is that gluster is a distributed file system that can be accessed simultaneously by more than one client. This means that consistency must be assured in all cases, which makes things go to bricks sooner than local filesystems normally do.

In your case, all data saved to the fuse volume will most probably be present on bricks once the dd command completes. On the other side, the test through the formatted sparse file, most probably, is keeping most of the data in the cache of the client machine.

Note that using the formatted sparse file makes it possible a better use of local cache, improving (relatively) small file access, but on the other side, this filesystem can only be used from a single client (single mount). If this client fails for some reason, you will loose access to your data.


How does Gluster work with sparse files in general? I may move some of the data on gluster volumes to formated sparse files..

Gluster works fine with sparse files. However you should consider the previous points before choosing the formatted sparse files option. I guess that the sustained throughput will be very similar for bigger files.

Regards,

Xavi


Thank you.


_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Development]     [Linux Filesytems Development]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux