Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dynamically vary the number of important worker threads in glusterfs based on load #406

Closed
manojtpillai opened this issue Feb 15, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@manojtpillai
Copy link

The number of threads employed in many areas in gluster is decided by tuning options, which need to be manually set by an admin if the default is not suitable for a specific use-case. Examples include values for client.event-threads and server.event-threads. While this manual tuning might be acceptable for some use cases, it is not likely to be tenable in environments where there are hundreds of volumes served out by gluster.

Instead, it would be good for gluster to have the intelligence to dynamically adjust the size of most of the important thread pools based on what's best for the workload. A test of the intelligence of such a solution would be to be able to match or come very close to the best performance result obtained through manual tuning.

[Recently, there has been some work on allowing multiple fuse reader threads, and fuse reader thread pool is another important pool where the dynamic approach can be employed; see: https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/optimizing_sds/]

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 30, 2020

Thank you for your contributions.
Noticed that this issue is not having any activity in last ~6 months! We are marking this issue as stale because it has not had recent activity.
It will be closed in 2 weeks if no one responds with a comment here.

@stale stale bot added the wontfix Managed by stale[bot] label Apr 30, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 15, 2020

Closing this issue as there was no update since my last update on issue. If this is an issue which is still valid, feel free to open it.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed May 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants