Hi Pranith, thanks a lot for your efforts and for tracking "my" problem with an issue. :-) I've set this params on the gluster volume and will start the 'find...' command within a short time. I'll probably add another answer to the list to document the progress. btw. - you had some typos: gluster volume set <volname> cluster.cluster.heal-wait-queue-length 10000 => cluster is doubled gluster volume set <volname> cluster.data-self-heal-window-size 16 => it's actually cluster.self-heal-window-size but actually no problem :-) Just curious: would gluster 4.1 improve the performance for healing and in general for "my" scenario? 2018-07-26 8:56 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Thanks a lot for detailed write-up, this helps find the bottlenecks easily. > On a high level, to handle this directory hierarchy i.e. lots of directories > with files, we need to improve healing > algorithms. Based on the data you provided, we need to make the following > enhancements: > > 1) At the moment directories are healed one at a time, but files can be > healed upto 64 in parallel per replica subvolume. > So if you have nX2 or nX3 distributed subvolumes, it can heal 64n number of > files in parallel. > > I raised https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/477 to track this. In > the mean-while you can use the following work-around: > a) Increase background heals on the mount: > gluster volume set <volname> cluster.background-self-heal-count 256 > gluster volume set <volname> cluster.cluster.heal-wait-queue-length 10000 > find <mnt> -type d | xargs stat > > one 'find' will trigger 10256 directories. So you may have to do this > periodically until all directories are healed. > > 2) Self-heal heals a file 128KB at a time(data-self-heal-window-size). I > think for your environment bumping upto MBs is better. Say 2MB i.e. > 16*128KB? > > Command to do that is: > gluster volume set <volname> cluster.data-self-heal-window-size 16 > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Pranith, >> >> Sry, it took a while to count the directories. I'll try to answer your >> questions as good as possible. >> >> > What kind of data do you have? >> > How many directories in the filesystem? >> > On average how many files per directory? >> > What is the depth of your directory hierarchy on average? >> > What is average filesize? >> >> We have mostly images (more than 95% of disk usage, 90% of file >> count), some text files (like css, jsp, gpx etc.) and some binaries. >> >> There are about 190.000 directories in the file system; maybe there >> are some more because we're hit by bug 1512371 (parallel-readdir = >> TRUE prevents directories listing). But the number of directories >> could/will rise in the future (maybe millions). >> >> files per directory: ranges from 0 to 100, on average it should be 20 >> files per directory (well, at least in the deepest dirs, see >> explanation below). >> >> Average filesize: ranges from a few hundred bytes up to 30 MB, on >> average it should be 2-3 MB. >> >> Directory hierarchy: maximum depth as seen from within the volume is >> 6, the average should be 3. >> >> volume name: shared >> mount point on clients: /data/repository/shared/ >> below /shared/ there are 2 directories: >> - public/: mainly calculated images (file sizes from a few KB up to >> max 1 MB) and some resouces (small PNGs with a size of a few hundred >> bytes). >> - private/: mainly source images; file sizes from 50 KB up to 30MB >> >> We migrated from a NFS server (SPOF) to glusterfs and simply copied >> our files. The images (which have an ID) are stored in the deepest >> directories of the dir tree. I'll better explain it :-) >> >> directory structure for the images (i'll omit some other miscellaneous >> stuff, but it looks quite similar): >> - ID of an image has 7 or 8 digits >> - /shared/private/: /(first 3 digits of ID)/(next 3 digits of ID)/$ID.jpg >> - /shared/public/: /(first 3 digits of ID)/(next 3 digits of >> ID)/$ID/$misc_formats.jpg >> >> That's why we have that many (sub-)directories. Files are only stored >> in the lowest directory hierarchy. I hope i could make our structure >> at least a bit more transparent. >> >> i hope there's something we can do to raise performance a bit. thx in >> advance :-) >> >> >> 2018-07-24 10:40 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, over the weekend about 200GB were copied, so now there are >> >> ~400GB copied to the brick. That's far beyond a speed of 10GB per >> >> hour. If I copied the 1.6 TB directly, that would be done within max 2 >> >> days. But with the self heal this will take at least 20 days minimum. >> >> >> >> Why is the performance that bad? No chance of speeding this up? >> > >> > >> > What kind of data do you have? >> > How many directories in the filesystem? >> > On average how many files per directory? >> > What is the depth of your directory hierarchy on average? >> > What is average filesize? >> > >> > Based on this data we can see if anything can be improved. Or if there >> > are >> > some >> > enhancements that need to be implemented in gluster to address this kind >> > of >> > data layout >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-07-20 9:41 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > hmm... no one any idea? >> >> > >> >> > Additional question: the hdd on server gluster12 was changed, so far >> >> > ~220 GB were copied. On the other 2 servers i see a lot of entries in >> >> > glustershd.log, about 312.000 respectively 336.000 entries there >> >> > yesterday, most of them (current log output) looking like this: >> >> > >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:30:49.757595] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3: >> >> > Completed data selfheal on 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6. >> >> > sources=0 [2] sinks=1 >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:30:49.992398] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:52:__afr_selfheal_metadata_do] >> >> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing metadata selfheal on >> >> > 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6 >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:30:50.243551] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3: >> >> > Completed metadata selfheal on 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6. >> >> > sources=0 [2] sinks=1 >> >> > >> >> > or like this: >> >> > >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:38:41.726943] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:52:__afr_selfheal_metadata_do] >> >> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing metadata selfheal on >> >> > 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:38:41.855737] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3: >> >> > Completed metadata selfheal on 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba. >> >> > sources=[0] 2 sinks=1 >> >> > [2018-07-20 07:38:44.755800] I [MSGID: 108026] >> >> > [afr-self-heal-entry.c:887:afr_selfheal_entry_do] >> >> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing entry selfheal on >> >> > 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba >> >> > >> >> > is this behaviour normal? I'd expect these messages on the server >> >> > with >> >> > the failed brick, not on the other ones. >> >> > >> >> > 2018-07-19 8:31 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> Hi there, >> >> >> >> >> >> sent this mail yesterday, but somehow it didn't work? Wasn't >> >> >> archived, >> >> >> so please be indulgent it you receive this mail again :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> We are currently running a replicate setup and are experiencing a >> >> >> quite poor performance. It got even worse when within a couple of >> >> >> weeks 2 bricks (disks) crashed. Maybe some general information of >> >> >> our >> >> >> setup: >> >> >> >> >> >> 3 Dell PowerEdge R530 (Xeon E5-1650 v3 Hexa-Core, 64 GB DDR4, OS on >> >> >> separate disks); each server has 4 10TB disks -> each is a brick; >> >> >> replica 3 setup (see gluster volume status below). Debian stretch, >> >> >> kernel 4.9.0, gluster version 3.12.12. Servers and clients are >> >> >> connected via 10 GBit ethernet. >> >> >> >> >> >> About a month ago and 2 days ago a disk died (on different servers); >> >> >> disk were replaced, were brought back into the volume and full self >> >> >> heal started. But the speed for this is quite... disappointing. Each >> >> >> brick has ~1.6TB of data on it (mostly the infamous small files). >> >> >> The >> >> >> full heal i started yesterday copied only ~50GB within 24 hours (48 >> >> >> hours: about 100GB) - with >> >> >> this rate it would take weeks until the self heal finishes. >> >> >> >> >> >> After the first heal (started on gluster13 about a month ago, took >> >> >> about 3 weeks) finished we had a terrible performance; CPU on one or >> >> >> two of the nodes (gluster11, gluster12) was up to 1200%, consumed by >> >> >> the brick process of the former crashed brick (bricksdd1), >> >> >> interestingly not on the server with the failed this, but on the >> >> >> other >> >> >> 2 ones... >> >> >> >> >> >> Well... am i doing something wrong? Some options wrongly configured? >> >> >> Terrible setup? Anyone got an idea? Any additional information >> >> >> needed? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thx in advance :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> gluster volume status >> >> >> >> >> >> Volume Name: shared >> >> >> Type: Distributed-Replicate >> >> >> Volume ID: e879d208-1d8c-4089-85f3-ef1b3aa45d36 >> >> >> Status: Started >> >> >> Snapshot Count: 0 >> >> >> Number of Bricks: 4 x 3 = 12 >> >> >> Transport-type: tcp >> >> >> Bricks: >> >> >> Brick1: gluster11:/gluster/bricksda1/shared >> >> >> Brick2: gluster12:/gluster/bricksda1/shared >> >> >> Brick3: gluster13:/gluster/bricksda1/shared >> >> >> Brick4: gluster11:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared >> >> >> Brick5: gluster12:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared >> >> >> Brick6: gluster13:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared >> >> >> Brick7: gluster11:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared >> >> >> Brick8: gluster12:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared >> >> >> Brick9: gluster13:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared >> >> >> Brick10: gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared >> >> >> Brick11: gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared >> >> >> Brick12: gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared >> >> >> Options Reconfigured: >> >> >> cluster.shd-max-threads: 4 >> >> >> performance.md-cache-timeout: 60 >> >> >> cluster.lookup-optimize: on >> >> >> cluster.readdir-optimize: on >> >> >> performance.cache-refresh-timeout: 4 >> >> >> performance.parallel-readdir: on >> >> >> server.event-threads: 8 >> >> >> client.event-threads: 8 >> >> >> performance.cache-max-file-size: 128MB >> >> >> performance.write-behind-window-size: 16MB >> >> >> performance.io-thread-count: 64 >> >> >> cluster.min-free-disk: 1% >> >> >> performance.cache-size: 24GB >> >> >> nfs.disable: on >> >> >> transport.address-family: inet >> >> >> performance.high-prio-threads: 32 >> >> >> performance.normal-prio-threads: 32 >> >> >> performance.low-prio-threads: 32 >> >> >> performance.least-prio-threads: 8 >> >> >> performance.io-cache: on >> >> >> server.allow-insecure: on >> >> >> performance.strict-o-direct: off >> >> >> transport.listen-backlog: 100 >> >> >> server.outstanding-rpc-limit: 128 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Gluster-users mailing list >> >> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Pranith > > > > > -- > Pranith _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
