Re: [MooseFS-users] [Moosefs-users] Got poor performance

[Aleksander W. <ale...@mo...>]

Aleksander Wieliczko
Technical Support Engineer
moosefs.com

Hi Yves
MooseFS 2.0.X is stable release - it's mean that is used in production
environment in many companies all over the world.

In our opinion you will get better performance on MooseFS 2.0.40-1.
First of all we made a lot of changes in communication protocol.
>From few months our own business working on MooseFS 2.0.40-1 and
handling 2 PetaByte instance with very stable and smooth work. Over 270
simultaneousmounts!So many problems disappearedsince we switched to
MooseFS 2.0.

Below I'm sending You MooseFS CE 2.0.40-1 dd test made at the moment in
our test configuration with is:
1x mfsmaster
3x chunkservers - 8GB RAM, 2xSATA 1TB 7200RPM HDD, 1Gb LAN JumboFrames,
Intel Xeon CPU
*
*Write to /mnt/mfs/goal2
dd if=/dev/zero of=test1m.bin bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 92.4997 s, 116 MB/s

dd if=/dev/zero of=test64k.bin bs=64k count=10240
671088640 bytes (671 MB) copied, 5.76488 s, 115 MB/s

 
Read from /mnt/mfs/goal2
dd if=test10g.bin of=/dev/null
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 104 s, 103 MB/s

Of course this test are not showing the real power of MooseFS.
Best Regards

Aleksander Wieliczko
Technical Support Engineer
moosefs.com


On 10/30/2014 07:20 PM, Yves wrote:
> Hi Aleksander,
>
> for the moment I prefer to keep mfs 1.6.27, which is the latest stable
> version of branch 1.6 (2.0 suppose migration and test again before
> production I think ...)
>
> My test are very simple tests done with basics tools :
>
> This is my new test now :
>
> 2 same servers (6 core AMD FX-6300 3,5 Ghz / 8 Go RAM / sata disk 6Gbps
> with no raid / gigabyte LAN CAT 6).
>
> I know the benefice of Jumbo frames but it is not possible to apply in
> my situation at the moment.
>
> So when I transfert a file under SSH from server A to server B (A and B
> are on RAID 1), 100 MB file (random content) :
> Result : speed transfert = 100 MB/s
>
> Now with MFS with goal = 2, the same file : 33 MB/s
>
> So, it's better, few days ago, the speed was ... 10MB/s
>
> I continue tests ...
>
> Yves
>
> Aleksander Wieliczko a écrit :
>> Hi Yves
>> We are very glad that You are using MooseFS distributed file system.
>>
>> First of all we strongly recommended to update your instance to MooseFS
>> 2.0.40-1 version.
>> We fixed some bugs and add many new algorithms. All this make MooseFS
>> 2.0 faster and provide better stability to cluster.
>>
>> >From description it appears that your LAN connection is getting only 76%
>> bandwidth of 1Gb LAN.
>> Can you check if you have any errors, dropped frames in INC interface?
>>
>> MooseFS is much more sensitive on LAN problems than nc.
>> MooseFS need to communicate not only to one computer, but to master,
>> chunkservers and clients, so this operations generating much more TCP
>> traffic than one to one connection.
>>
>> By the way.
>> We have similar configuration (8GB RAM, SATA 7200 RPM HDD, 1Gb LAN) in
>> our development environment and we getting results for GOAL2
>> read: 80MB/s and write: 50MB/s
>>
>> Can you send some more informations about this tests, and what software
>> are you using to measure the MooseFS speed.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Aleksander Wieliczko
>> Technical Support Engineer
>> moosefs.com
>>
>> On 10/18/2014 12:22 PM, "Yves Réveillon - eurower.fr" wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> I got poor performance with MooseFS :s
>>>
>>> This is my test :
>>>
>>> 3 servers with on each :
>>> - 6 core AMD FX-6300 3,5 Ghz
>>> - 8 Go RAM
>>> - sata disk 6Gbps with no raid
>>> - gigabyte LAN
>>>
>>> The switch is a HP Gigabyte, with CAT 6
>>>
>>> 1 server is the mfsmaster
>>> 3 servers are chunkservers
>>>
>>> Tests with a tmpfs randomly data of 1 Go :
>>>
>>> Bandwidth beetween 2 server with ncat : 780 Mbps
>>> Bandwitdh to write to a single sata (RAID-less) : 2593 Mbps (324 MB/s)
>>>
>>> MooseFS 1.6.27 with 2x replication goal :
>>> Bandwidth : 85 Mbps (10.6 MB/s).
>>>
>>> During test, RAM is good, no production on theses servers (no activity)
>>> and CPU is enought (less than 20%)
>>>
>>> Network and HDD not seems to be a bottleneck, so do you have any idea of
>>> why I have 10.6 MB/s and not 20 or 30 MB/s as announced ?
>>>
>>> Thanks you
>>>
>>> Yves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
>>> Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
>>> Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
>>> Take corrective actions from your mobile device.
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> moosefs-users mailing list
>>> moo...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>>>     
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
>> Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
>> Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
>> Take corrective actions from your mobile device.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
>> _______________________________________________
>> moosefs-users mailing list
>> moo...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>>