[ovirt-users] Replicated Glusterfs on top of ZFS
Juan Pablo
pablo.localhost at gmail.com
Fri Mar 3 14:19:35 UTC 2017
ok, you have 3 pools, zclei22, logs and cache, thats wrong. you should have
1 pool, with zlog+cache if you are looking for performance.
also, dont mix drives.
whats the performance issue you are facing?
regards,
2017-03-03 11:00 GMT-03:00 Arman Khalatyan <arm2arm at gmail.com>:
> This is CentOS 7.3 ZoL version 0.6.5.9-1
>
> [root at clei22 ~]# lsscsi
>
> [2:0:0:0] disk ATA INTEL SSDSC2CW24 400i /dev/sda
>
> [3:0:0:0] disk ATA HGST HUS724040AL AA70 /dev/sdb
>
> [4:0:0:0] disk ATA WDC WD2002FYPS-0 1G01 /dev/sdc
>
>
> [root at clei22 ~]# pvs ;vgs;lvs
>
> PV VG Fmt
> Attr PSize PFree
>
> /dev/mapper/INTEL_SSDSC2CW240A3_CVCV306302RP240CGN vg_cache lvm2
> a-- 223.57g 0
>
> /dev/sdc2 centos_clei22 lvm2
> a-- 1.82t 64.00m
>
> VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree
>
> centos_clei22 1 3 0 wz--n- 1.82t 64.00m
>
> vg_cache 1 2 0 wz--n- 223.57g 0
>
> LV VG Attr LSize Pool Origin Data% Meta% Move
> Log Cpy%Sync Convert
>
> home centos_clei22 -wi-ao---- 1.74t
>
>
> root centos_clei22 -wi-ao---- 50.00g
>
>
> swap centos_clei22 -wi-ao---- 31.44g
>
>
> lv_cache vg_cache -wi-ao---- 213.57g
>
>
> lv_slog vg_cache -wi-ao---- 10.00g
>
>
> [root at clei22 ~]# zpool status -v
>
> pool: zclei22
>
> state: ONLINE
>
> scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h0m with 0 errors on Tue Feb 28 14:16:07 2017
>
> config:
>
>
> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>
> zclei22 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
> HGST_HUS724040ALA640_PN2334PBJ4SV6T1 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
> logs
>
> lv_slog ONLINE 0 0 0
>
> cache
>
> lv_cache ONLINE 0 0 0
>
>
> errors: No known data errors
>
>
> *ZFS config:*
>
> [root at clei22 ~]# zfs get all zclei22/01
>
> NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
>
> zclei22/01 type filesystem -
>
> zclei22/01 creation Tue Feb 28 14:06 2017 -
>
> zclei22/01 used 389G -
>
> zclei22/01 available 3.13T -
>
> zclei22/01 referenced 389G -
>
> zclei22/01 compressratio 1.01x -
>
> zclei22/01 mounted yes -
>
> zclei22/01 quota none default
>
> zclei22/01 reservation none default
>
> zclei22/01 recordsize 128K local
>
> zclei22/01 mountpoint /zclei22/01 default
>
> zclei22/01 sharenfs off default
>
> zclei22/01 checksum on default
>
> zclei22/01 compression off local
>
> zclei22/01 atime on default
>
> zclei22/01 devices on default
>
> zclei22/01 exec on default
>
> zclei22/01 setuid on default
>
> zclei22/01 readonly off default
>
> zclei22/01 zoned off default
>
> zclei22/01 snapdir hidden default
>
> zclei22/01 aclinherit restricted default
>
> zclei22/01 canmount on default
>
> zclei22/01 xattr sa local
>
> zclei22/01 copies 1 default
>
> zclei22/01 version 5 -
>
> zclei22/01 utf8only off -
>
> zclei22/01 normalization none -
>
> zclei22/01 casesensitivity sensitive -
>
> zclei22/01 vscan off default
>
> zclei22/01 nbmand off default
>
> zclei22/01 sharesmb off default
>
> zclei22/01 refquota none default
>
> zclei22/01 refreservation none default
>
> zclei22/01 primarycache metadata local
>
> zclei22/01 secondarycache metadata local
>
> zclei22/01 usedbysnapshots 0 -
>
> zclei22/01 usedbydataset 389G -
>
> zclei22/01 usedbychildren 0 -
>
> zclei22/01 usedbyrefreservation 0 -
>
> zclei22/01 logbias latency default
>
> zclei22/01 dedup off default
>
> zclei22/01 mlslabel none default
>
> zclei22/01 sync disabled local
>
> zclei22/01 refcompressratio 1.01x -
>
> zclei22/01 written 389G -
>
> zclei22/01 logicalused 396G -
>
> zclei22/01 logicalreferenced 396G -
>
> zclei22/01 filesystem_limit none default
>
> zclei22/01 snapshot_limit none default
>
> zclei22/01 filesystem_count none default
>
> zclei22/01 snapshot_count none default
>
> zclei22/01 snapdev hidden default
>
> zclei22/01 acltype off default
>
> zclei22/01 context none default
>
> zclei22/01 fscontext none default
>
> zclei22/01 defcontext none default
>
> zclei22/01 rootcontext none default
>
> zclei22/01 relatime off default
>
> zclei22/01 redundant_metadata all default
>
> zclei22/01 overlay off default
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Juan Pablo <pablo.localhost at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Which operating system version are you using for your zfs storage?
>> do:
>> zfs get all your-pool-name
>> use arc_summary.py from freenas git repo if you wish.
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-03 10:33 GMT-03:00 Arman Khalatyan <arm2arm at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Pool load:
>>> [root at clei21 ~]# zpool iostat -v 1
>>> capacity operations
>>> bandwidth
>>> pool alloc free read write
>>> read write
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>> zclei21 10.1G 3.62T 0 112
>>> 823 8.82M
>>> HGST_HUS724040ALA640_PN2334PBJ52XWT1 10.1G 3.62T 0 46
>>> 626 4.40M
>>> logs - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_slog 225M 9.72G 0 66
>>> 198 4.45M
>>> cache - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_cache 9.81G 204G 0 46
>>> 56 4.13M
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>>
>>> capacity operations
>>> bandwidth
>>> pool alloc free read write
>>> read write
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>> zclei21 10.1G 3.62T 0 191
>>> 0 12.8M
>>> HGST_HUS724040ALA640_PN2334PBJ52XWT1 10.1G 3.62T 0 0
>>> 0 0
>>> logs - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_slog 225M 9.72G 0 191
>>> 0 12.8M
>>> cache - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_cache 9.83G 204G 0 218
>>> 0 20.0M
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>>
>>> capacity operations
>>> bandwidth
>>> pool alloc free read write
>>> read write
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>> zclei21 10.1G 3.62T 0 191
>>> 0 12.7M
>>> HGST_HUS724040ALA640_PN2334PBJ52XWT1 10.1G 3.62T 0 0
>>> 0 0
>>> logs - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_slog 225M 9.72G 0 191
>>> 0 12.7M
>>> cache - - - -
>>> - -
>>> lv_cache 9.83G 204G 0 72
>>> 0 7.68M
>>> -------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
>>> ----- -----
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Arman Khalatyan <arm2arm at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Glusterfs now in healing mode:
>>>> Receiver:
>>>> [root at clei21 ~]# arcstat.py 1
>>>> time read miss miss% dmis dm% pmis pm% mmis mm% arcsz
>>>> c
>>>> 13:24:49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:50 154 80 51 80 51 0 0 80 51 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:51 179 62 34 62 34 0 0 62 42 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:52 148 68 45 68 45 0 0 68 45 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:53 140 64 45 64 45 0 0 64 45 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:54 124 48 38 48 38 0 0 48 38 4.6G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:55 157 80 50 80 50 0 0 80 50 4.7G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:56 202 68 33 68 33 0 0 68 41 4.7G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:57 127 54 42 54 42 0 0 54 42 4.7G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:58 126 50 39 50 39 0 0 50 39 4.7G
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:24:59 116 40 34 40 34 0 0 40 34 4.7G
>>>> 31G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sender
>>>> [root at clei22 ~]# arcstat.py 1
>>>> time read miss miss% dmis dm% pmis pm% mmis mm% arcsz
>>>> c
>>>> 13:28:37 8 2 25 2 25 0 0 2 25 468M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:38 1.2K 727 62 727 62 0 0 525 54 469M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:39 815 508 62 508 62 0 0 376 55 469M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:40 994 624 62 624 62 0 0 450 54 469M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:41 783 456 58 456 58 0 0 338 50 470M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:42 916 541 59 541 59 0 0 390 50 470M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:43 768 437 56 437 57 0 0 313 48 471M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:44 877 534 60 534 60 0 0 393 53 470M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:45 957 630 65 630 65 0 0 450 57 470M
>>>> 31G
>>>> 13:28:46 819 479 58 479 58 0 0 357 51 471M
>>>> 31G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Juan Pablo <pablo.localhost at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hey,
>>>>> what are you using for zfs? get an arc status and show please
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-03-02 9:57 GMT-03:00 Arman Khalatyan <arm2arm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> no,
>>>>>> ZFS itself is not on top of lvm. only ssd was spitted by lvm for
>>>>>> slog(10G) and cache (the rest)
>>>>>> but in any-case the ssd does not help much on glusterfs/ovirt load
>>>>>> it has almost 100% cache misses....:( (terrible performance compare with
>>>>>> nfs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:47 PM, FERNANDO FREDIANI <
>>>>>> fernando.frediani at upx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am I understanding correctly, but you have Gluster on the top of ZFS
>>>>>>> which is on the top of LVM ? If so, why the usage of LVM was necessary ? I
>>>>>>> have ZFS with any need of LVM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fernando
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/03/2017 06:19, Arman Khalatyan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I use 3 nodes with zfs and glusterfs.
>>>>>>> Are there any suggestions to optimize it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> host zfs config 4TB-HDD+250GB-SSD:
>>>>>>> [root at clei22 ~]# zpool status
>>>>>>> pool: zclei22
>>>>>>> state: ONLINE
>>>>>>> scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h0m with 0 errors on Tue Feb 28
>>>>>>> 14:16:07 2017
>>>>>>> config:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NAME STATE READ WRITE
>>>>>>> CKSUM
>>>>>>> zclei22 ONLINE 0
>>>>>>> 0 0
>>>>>>> HGST_HUS724040ALA640_PN2334PBJ4SV6T1 ONLINE 0
>>>>>>> 0 0
>>>>>>> logs
>>>>>>> lv_slog ONLINE 0
>>>>>>> 0 0
>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>> lv_cache ONLINE 0
>>>>>>> 0 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> errors: No known data errors
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Name:
>>>>>>> GluReplica
>>>>>>> Volume ID:
>>>>>>> ee686dfe-203a-4caa-a691-26353460cc48
>>>>>>> Volume Type:
>>>>>>> Replicate (Arbiter)
>>>>>>> Replica Count:
>>>>>>> 2 + 1
>>>>>>> Number of Bricks:
>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>> Transport Types:
>>>>>>> TCP, RDMA
>>>>>>> Maximum no of snapshots:
>>>>>>> 256
>>>>>>> Capacity:
>>>>>>> 3.51 TiB total, 190.56 GiB used, 3.33 TiB free
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Users mailing listUsers at ovirt.orghttp://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>> Users at ovirt.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>> Users at ovirt.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20170303/558ef738/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Users
mailing list