[Beowulf] NFS vs LVM

Andrew Holway andrew.holway at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 05:20:29 PST 2012


Dear Listeroons,

I have been doing some testing with KVM and Virtuozzo(containers based
virtualisation)  and various storage devices and have some results I would
like some help analyzing.

I have a nice big ZFS box from Oracle (Yes, evil but Solaris NFS is
amazing). I have 10G and IB connecting these to my cluster

My cluster is four HP servers (E5-2670 & 144GB ram) with a RAID10 of 600k
SAS drives.

Please open these pictures side by side.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98200887/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-04%20at%202.50.33%20PM.png

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98200887/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-04%20at%203.18.03%20PM.png

You will notice that using KVM/LVM on the local RAID10 completely destroys
performance whereas the container based virtualisation stuff is awesome and
as fast as the NFS.

Why does LVM suck so hard compared to a single filesystem approach. What am
I doing wrong?

4,8,12,16...VMs relates to the aggregate performance of the benchmark in
that number of VMs. 4 = 1 VM on each node, 8 = 2 VM on each node.

TPCC warehouses is the number of tpcc warehouses that  the benchmark used.
1 warehouse is about 150MB so 10 warehouses would mean about 1.5GB of data
being held in the innodb pool.

Thanks,

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20121221/35b6fad5/attachment.html 


More information about the Beowulf mailing list