Re: [MooseFS-Users] Performance issue with mfsmount 3.0.84?

[Wilson, S. M <st...@pu...>]

Okay, thanks... I should have remembered that.

Steve

On Nov 2, 2016 9:04 PM, Piotr Robert Konopelko <pio...@mo...> wrote:

Hi,

please follow instructions available on https://moosefs.com/download.html:

"There is also possibility to use version number instead of "branch" if you want to decide exactly which version of MooseFS you want to upgrade to (e.g. 3.0.81-1)",

so the address would be:

deb http://ppa.moosefs.com/3.0.81/apt/ubuntu/trusty trusty main


Best regards,
Peter

Piotr Robert Konopelko
MooseFS Technical Support Engineer
e-mail: pio...@mo...<mailto:pio...@mo...>
www: https://moosefs.com<https://moosefs.com/>

// Sent from my phone, sorry for condensed form

On Nov 3, 2016 1:49 AM, "Wilson, Steven M" <st...@pu...> wrote:

Hi,

Is there a repository of older versions MooseFS packages like 3.0.81?  In my case, I'm looking for Ubuntu 14.04/16.04 packages.

Thanks!

Steve

On Nov 2, 2016 5:52 PM, Piotr Robert Konopelko <pio...@mo...> wrote:

>

> Hi,
>
> just a quick update for now - if you are running MooseFS Mount v. 3.0.84 and encountering some efficiency problems, please downgrade your clients to 3.0.81.
>
> There probably is a bug in the newest client and we are working on it.
>
> By the way: Please DO NOT downgrade Chunkservers if you have already upgraded them to 3.0.84, because there's new, 8k header in CS 3.0.84 and downgrade may cause potential data loss - older Chunkserver can't "understand" new header.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> --
>
> Piotr Robert Konopelko
> MooseFS Technical Support Engineer
> e-mail: pio...@mo...<mailto:pio...@mo...>
> www: https://moosefs.com
><https://twitter.com/MooseFS>
>  <https://twitter.com/MooseFS>  <https://www.facebook.com/moosefs>  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/moosefs>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Core Technology accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
>
>

>> On 02 Nov 2016, at 10:44 PM, Ricardo J. Barberis <ric...@do...<mailto:ric...@do...>> wrote:

>>
>> Damn, I just sent an email describing this exact problem, but my whole cluster
>> runs on Moosefs 3.0.84.
>>
>> El Miércoles 02/11/2016, Wilson, Steven M escribió:

>>>

>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> We have several workstations that are using the latest version of mfsmount
>>> (3.0.84) and I've started to receive complaints about very slow
>>> performance.  I ran a few tests (untarring the Linux kernel source) and it
>>> appears that on the 3.0.84 clients performance will continue to degrade
>>> each time I run the test.  For example, one workstation shows these results
>>> from three successive runs:
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> root@saturn:/net/em/test# time tar xf linux-4.9-rc3.tar; time rm -rf
>>> linux-4.9-rc3
>>>
>>> real 4m34.614s
>>> user 0m1.416s
>>> sys 0m7.480s
>>>
>>> real 2m57.863s
>>> user 0m0.436s
>>> sys 0m2.192s
>>> root@saturn:/net/em/test# time tar xf linux-4.9-rc3.tar; time rm -rf
>>> linux-4.9-rc3
>>>
>>> real 6m59.159s
>>> user 0m1.924s
>>> sys 0m7.276s
>>>
>>> real 5m39.582s
>>> user 0m0.484s
>>> sys 0m2.548s
>>> root@saturn:/net/em/test# time tar xf linux-4.9-rc3.tar; time rm -rf
>>> linux-4.9-rc3
>>>
>>> real 9m1.816s
>>> user 0m1.928s
>>> sys 0m7.160s
>>>
>>> real 7m54.979s
>>> user 0m0.584s
>>> sys 0m2.968s
>>> ?
>>> ?If I unmount the file system and then mount it again, performance returns
>>> to normal but will degrade over time like before.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if I run the same test on a different client using
>>> mfsmount 3.0.81 then my performance remains stable and doesn't degrade over
>>> time after heavy use.
>>>
>>> Is there perhaps a problem with mfsmount versions higher than 3.0.81?
>>>
>>> I should add that none of my servers (master, metalogger, chunk) are
>>> running higher than 3.0.81 so this could be due to a mismatch between
>>> mfsmount and server version.  I doubt this but I wanted to mention it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to mention in passing, the same test on a local disk is blazingly fast
>>> in comparison.  I understand that this is a really tortuous test for a
>>> distributed file system but the performance discrepancy is quite
>>> substantial (5 seconds vs. 275 seconds for the untar, 1 second vs. 178
>>> seconds for the rm).  Here are the timings on the local disk:?
>>>
>>> stevew@otter:/otter-scratch/TEST$ time tar xf linux-4.9-rc3.tar; time rm
>>> -rf linux-4.9-rc3
>>>
>>> real 0m5.419s
>>> user 0m0.304s
>>> sys 0m2.368s
>>>
>>> real 0m1.038s
>>> user 0m0.052s
>>> sys 0m0.976s
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ricardo J. Barberis
>> Senior SysAdmin / IT Architect
>> DonWeb
>> La Actitud Es Todo
>> www.DonWeb.com<http://www.donweb.com/>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
>> Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
>> With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
>> Training and support from Colfax.
>> Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
>> _________________________________________
>> moosefs-users mailing list
>> moo...@li...<mailto:moo...@li...>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users>
>
>