Re: [Moosefs-users] Question re: win32 client/access

[Robert S. <rsa...@ne...>]

Hi Greg,

I have isolated several issues:

1. mfsmaster is single threaded. This implies that if it has to share 
time with any other processes on the same machine then performance can 
suffer significantly.
2. mfsmount has a single TCP connection to mfsmaster. This implies that 
most accesses to all the files on a mount has to share a single TCP 
connection to the master. This is a significant bottleneck.
3. mfschunkserver has 10 threads doing work for all the mfsmount's and 
10 threads doing work for mfsmaster. This easily gets overwhelmed on a 
busy system.

Running mfsmaster on a dedicated machine helps with the first issue.

Running multiple copies of mfsmount helps with the second issue.

Limiting the number of disks managed by a specific mfschunkserver 
instance helps with the third issue.

My guess is that you should have one instance of mfsmount for about 
every 20 simultaneous accesses. You also should have 1 instance of 
mfschunkserver for every 10 disks (spindles). A dedicated mfsmaster is 
also a very good idea.

Robert

On 2/17/12 4:43 AM, Palak, Grzegorz (NSN - PL/Wroclaw) wrote:
> @Robert
> What mfsmount bottlenecks you have on mind?
> Have you noticed any performance related bottlenecks?
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Robert Sandilands [mailto:rsa...@ne...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:56 AM
> To: moo...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Question re: win32 client/access
>
> I have to disagree.
>
> mfsmaster is very sensitive to load. You really want to run a dedicated
> master server. Setting up a (virtual) machine or even multiple (virtual)
>
> machines to mount the file system is a better idea.
>
> Ensure that you disable all asynchronous file access in Samba. FUSE and
> sendfile() is not a great combination.
>
> I would also recommend having a mount per SMB share.
>
> For example if you plan to have 3 shares called "tools", "docs" and
> "tmp" then I would mount MooseFS on three folders: /mnt/mfs_tools,
> /mnt/mfs_docs and /mnt/mfs_tmp and share those points using SMB. This
> implies running 3 instances of mfsmount. It works around some
> bottlenecks in mfsmount.
>
> Robert
>
> On 2/13/12 1:38 PM, JJ wrote:
>> Perfect!
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> JJ
>> Support Engineer
>> Cirrhus9.com
>>
>> On 02/13/2012 01:38 PM, Travis Hein wrote:
>>> ...
>>> But functionally there is no technical consideration why you could
> not
>>> run mfsmount on the mfsmaster node.
>>> ...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
>> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft
> developers
>> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3,
> MVC3,
>> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>> _______________________________________________
>> moosefs-users mailing list
>> moo...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> moosefs-users mailing list
> moo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users