Dear All,<br><br>we are currently using NFS to meet data sharing requirements.Now we are facing some performance and scalability problem ,so this form does not meet the requirements of our network(performance).So we are finding the possible solutions to increase the performance and scalability .To give very strong solution to NFS issue I have analysed two File System one is GlusterFS and another one is Red Hat GFS.we conclude that GlusterFS will increase the performance and scalability ,It has all the features we are looking .For the testing purpose I am benchmarking NFS and GlusterFS to get better performance .My benchmark result shows that GlusterFS give better performance ,but i am getting some unacceptable read performance . I am not able to understand how exactly the read operation performs NFS and GlusterFS .even I don't know anything i am doing wrong.here i am showing the benchmark result to get better idea of my read performance issuee .i have attached the result of NFS and GlusterFS read values .any one can please go thro this and give me some valuable guide .It will make my benchmarking very effective . <br>
<br>This my server and client Hardware and software :<br><br>HARDWARE CONFIG:<br><br>Processor core speed : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz<br><br>Number of cores : Single Core (not dual-core)<br><br>RAM size : 384MB(128MB+256MB)<br>
<br>RAM type : DDR<br><br>RAM Speed : 266 MHz (3.8 ns)<br><br>Swap : 1027MB<br><br>Storage controller : ATA device<br><br>Disk model/size : SAMSUNG SV4012H /40 GB,2 MB Cache,<br><br>Storage speed : 52.4 MB/sec<br><br>
Spindle Speed : 5400 rpm(Revolution per Minute)<br><br>NIC Type : VIA Rhine III chipset IRQ 18<br><br>NIC Speed : 100 Mbps/Full-Duplex Card <br><br>SOFTWARE:<br><br>Operation System : Fedora Core 9 GNU/Linux<br><br>Linux version : 2.6.9-42<br>
<br>Local FS : Ext3<br><br>NFS version : 1.1.2<br><br>GlusterFS version: glusterfs 1.3.8 built on Feb 3 2008<br><br>Iozone : iozone-3-5.fc9.i386 (File System Benchmark Tool)<br><br>ttcp : ttcp-1.12-18.fc9.i386(RAW throughput measurement Tool) <br>
<br>This is the server and client vol files i am using the benchmarking <br><br>#GlusterFS Server Volume Specification <br><br>volume brick<br> type storage/posix # POSIX FS translator<br> option directory /bench # /bench dir contains 25,000 files with size 10 KB 15KB<br>
end-volume<br><br>volume iot<br> type performance/io-threads<br> option thread-count 4 <br> option cache-size 8MB<br> subvolumes brick<br>end-volume<br><br>volume server<br> type protocol/server<br> option transport-type tcp/server <br>
subvolumes iot<br> option auth.ip.brick.allow * # Allow access to "brick" volume<br>end-volume<br><br><br><br># GlusterFS Client Volume Specification <br><br>volume client<br> type protocol/client<br> option transport-type tcp/client <br>
option remote-host 192.xxx.x.xxx <br> option remote-subvolume brick <br>end-volume<br><br>volume readahead<br> type performance/read-ahead<br> option page-size 128KB # 256KB is the default option<br>
option page-count 4 # cache per file = (page-count x page-size) 2 is default option<br> subvolumes client<br>end-volume<br><br>volume iocache<br> type performance/io-cache<br> #option page-size 128KB ## default is 32MB<br>
option cache-size 256MB #128KB is default option<br> option page-count 4 <br> subvolumes readahead<br>end-volume<br><br>volume writeback<br> type performance/write-behind<br> option aggregate-size 128KB<br> option flush-behind on<br>
subvolumes iocache <br>end-volume<br><br><br>I am confusing this result .I don't have idea how to trace and get good comparable result is read performance .I think I am miss understanding the buffer cache concepts .<br>
<br>From attached NFS read result , I understand that I have 348MB RAM and I am doing the benchmark file size rage 128KB to 1GB .So up to file size 256MB I am getting buffer cache performance and file size 512MB ,1GB I am getting with in link speed .But in case of GlusterFS I not able to understand what is happening . <br>
<br>Please any one can help me .<br><br><br><br>Thanks for your time<br>Mohan<br><br>