[ovirt-users] Performance issue for GlusterFS as the block storage for VMs

Thu Jan 15 19:23:48 UTC 2015

I see. 

So have you done any tuning for IO performance or are the configs straight
out of the box. You also said you mounted the volume to a vm. Did you mount
it as gluster or use the built in NFS??

Donny

From: Yue, Cong [mailto:Cong_Yue at alliedtelesis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Donny Davis; users at ovirt.org
Subject: RE: [ovirt-users] Performance issue for GlusterFS as the block
storage for VMs

I am using iometer (http://www.iometer.org/) to test the IOPS from one of
the vm.

As for IOPS is more trying to test the performance of block, rather than
real file transfer.

In my environment, I am using 10Gbe to make two gluster nodes be replicated.
And I mount it to vm as a volume. I tested the performance both for SAS and
SSD.

This is my current result with iometer. 

Test ID

Application

Block Size (Bytes)

Read/Write %

Random/Sequential %

I/O Performance Metrics

iscsi-hdd

iscsi-ssd

Guster,HDD

Gluster,SSD

1

Web File Server

4K

95%/5%

75%/25%

IOPS

195.28

2400.63

208.50

646.75

2

Web File Server

8K

95%/5%

75%/25%

IOPS

193.97

2225.73

179.89

649.93

3

Web File Server

64K

95%/5%

75%/25%

IOPS

180.50

1055.05

158.28

402.15

4

Database Online Transaction Processing

8K

70%/30%

100%/0%

IOPS

163.60

2415.90

132.13

308.46

5

Exchange Email

4K

67%/33%

100%/0%

IOPS

167.03

2685.33

145.92

294.56

6

OS Drive

8K

70%/30%

100%/0%

IOPS

163.60

2407.02

146.11

310.82

7

Decision Support System

1M

100%/0%

100%/0%

IOPS

74.24

207.42

81.14

112.20

8

File Server

8K

90%/10%

75%/25%

IOPS

191.20

2102.32

359.54

526.86

9

Video on Demand

512K

100%/0%

100%/0%

IOPS

100.32

327.19

136.66

162.48

10

Traffic Simulation

8K

50%/50%

75%/25%

IOPS

238.28

1923.91

301.05

297.70

11

Web Server Logging

8K

0%/100%

0%/100%

IOPS

3488.47

3644.33

290.33

282.04

12

SQL Server Logging

64K

0%/100%

0%/100%

IOPS

1423.29

1375.33

182.67

168.64

13

OS Paging

64K

90%/10%

0%/100%

IOPS

1215.74

1211.01

381.17

355.99

14

Media Streaming

64K

98%/2%

0%/100%

IOPS

1350.96

1365.22

457.28

455.49

The issue for GlusterFS I found is 

-          It can not retain the nature of SSD and SAS, such as SAS is
strong  for sequential access. SSD is strong for random access.

-          In some case, especially for SSD, the performance is pretty bad.

Thanks,

Cong

From: Donny Davis [mailto:donny at cloudspin.me] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Yue, Cong; users at ovirt.org
Subject: RE: [ovirt-users] Performance issue for GlusterFS as the block
storage for VMs

Do you have any metrics to give an idea of the difference. I am using NFS
right now, and I am migrating to Gluster. I have the gluster system up, and
I see that it seems to provision disks faster than my NFS. I haven't used
any real measurement tools to get actual metrics, this is all perceived. 

Do you have an operational gluster?

Do what are you using right now?

Donny D

cloudspin.me

From: users-bounces at ovirt.org [mailto:users-bounces at ovirt.org] On Behalf Of
Yue, Cong
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:57 AM
To: users at ovirt.org
Subject: [ovirt-users] Performance issue for GlusterFS as the block storage
for VMs

Hi 

I have one question about whether GlusterFS is the suitable solution to be
used as the block storage for VMs.

The failure tolerant and scalability is good for GlusterFS, but in my test,
it seems the iops is pretty bad. In some blog, it said, it is even with
worse performance than normal NFS.

Should I use iscsi+drbd for the block storage for VMs.

Can somebody give some advice for this? 

Thanks,
Cong

  _____  

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be
advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and
disclosure by the sender's e-mail System Administrator.

  _____  

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be
advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and
disclosure by the sender's e-mail System Administrator.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150115/265f7a52/attachment-0001.html>