Bug 810477
Summary: | Inter-node communication flaw, serious performance issue | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Community] GlusterFS | Reporter: | Gareth Bult <gareth> |
Component: | glusterd | Assignee: | krishnan parthasarathi <kparthas> |
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | mainline | CC: | bugs, gareth, gluster-bugs, jdarcy, kaushal, nsathyan, rwheeler |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-10-22 15:46:38 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Gareth Bult
2012-04-06 10:30:22 UTC
Just to clarify, if on the server I do "gluster peer detach" for all other nodes, then for example add a new volume, then "gluster peer probe" for all other nodes, this seems to work fine. It's just a very messy process every time you want to perform an operation on a volume (!) KP/Kaushal, need a resolution on this. Difference to performance is orders of magnitude based on the number of network cards available per machine. Does seem like a fairly notable issue ?! Anyone looking at this? Current solution is to run a VPS per network card and serve data from with the VPS .. but this is horribly inefficient and complicates management no-end. Ok, if anyone is looking at this, I've just installed the released version of 3.3.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 and the issue still exists. Does anyone have a solution other than virtualising the whole lot and running one VM per NIC? Gareth, we have now made lot more VM hosting related enhancements to the product compared to earlier. Can you run a round of tests with 3.4.0qa releases (qa6 is the lastest now) ? Sorry, Gluster didn't cut it for me re; VM hosting and I now have a solution that renders Gluster completely obsolete (for VM hosting) in every respect. For what it's worth; I think the Gluster concept is good, but releasing such a hopelessly unstable product without the promised VM support .. not good. Well, we can't be all things to all people. However, we might get closer if you could tell us in what ways you consider Gluster obsolete or unstable. There's nothing about that in this particular bug report, which is limited to one specific network configuration which most people would consider inferior to bonding or split-horizon DNS anyway. Are you willing to be more constructive? Specifically, my current solution offers network RAID10 with local LFU caching on SSD, this outperforms any other shared storage product I've tried by many orders of magnitude. Is this something Gluster is likely to add? Feature requests make most sense against the 'mainline' release, there is no ETA for an implementation and requests might get forgotten when filed against a particular version. because of the large number of bugs filed against mainline version\ is ambiguous and about to be removed as a choice. If you believe this is still a bug, please change the status back to NEW and choose the appropriate, applicable version for it. |