[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Slowness above 500 RRDs



On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:06:56PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Here is the old mail I haven't sent before.  Meanwhile, I'm switching
> in other nodes to continue the tests in my previous mail.
> 
> David Teigland <teigland redhat com> writes:
> 
> > Make sure that drop_count is zero again, now it's in sysfs:
> >   echo 0 > /sys/fs/gfs/<foo>:<bar>/lock_module/drop_count
> 
> Ok, I set it after mount, on nodeA only.
> 
> > Then run some tests:
> > - mount on nodeA
> > - run the test on nodeA
> filecount=500
>   iteration=0 elapsed time=7.392987 s
>   iteration=1 elapsed time=4.27927 s
>   iteration=2 elapsed time=5.262367 s
>   iteration=3 elapsed time=5.265202 s
>   iteration=4 elapsed time=5.269652 s
> total elapsed time=27.469478 s
> > - count locks on nodeA
> >   (cat /sys/kernel/debug/dlm/<bar> | grep Master | wc -l)
> nodeA: 1031
> > - mount on nodeB (don't do anything on this node)
> > - run the test again on nodeA
> filecount=500
>   iteration=0 elapsed time=4.288288 s
>   iteration=1 elapsed time=5.282437 s
>   iteration=2 elapsed time=5.244141 s
>   iteration=3 elapsed time=5.268136 s
>   iteration=4 elapsed time=5.261129 s
> total elapsed time=25.344131 s
> > - count locks on nodeA and nodeB (see above)
> nodeA: 1030
> nodeB: 20
> > - mount on nodeC (don't do anything on nodes B or C)
> > - run the test again on nodeA
> filecount=500
>   iteration=0 elapsed time=4.307917 s
>   iteration=1 elapsed time=5.298193 s
>   iteration=2 elapsed time=5.295678 s
>   iteration=3 elapsed time=5.336343 s
>   iteration=4 elapsed time=5.308529 s
> total elapsed time=25.54666 s
> > - count locks on nodes A, B and C (see above)
> nodeA: 1030
> nodeB:   20
> nodeC:   21
> 
> > We're basically trying to produce the best-case performance from one node,
> > nodeA.  That means making sure that nodeA is mastering all locks and doing
> > maximum caching.  That's why it's important that we not do anything at all
> > that accesses the fs on nodes B or C, or do any extra mounts/unmounts.
> 
> Yes, this sounds very reasonable.  But looks like nodeA feels obliged
> to communicate its locking process around the cluster.  

I'm not sure what you mean here.  To see the amount of dlm locking traffic
on the network, look at port 21064.  There should be very little in the
test above... and the dlm locking that you do see should mostly be related
to file i/o, not flocks.

> What confuses me is that he emits multicast packets even when he's the
> only member.  Otherwise, it passes tokens around the cluster, which
> makes more sense, though still unnecessary, as he is the lock master (if
> I get the lock master concept right).

I think you're confusing the multicast network traffic from openais
(related to cluster membership) and the point-to-point network traffic
from the dlm (related to gfs locking).  The two types of traffic are not
related.

Dave


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]