[Pulp-list] /var/lib/pulp on glusterfs?

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Mon Nov 2 14:09:10 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA256

I personally haven't used Pulp with /var/lib/pulp hosted on glusterfs,
but it should work. I've heard from others that they've specifically
done it, and that it worked for them.

The clustering guide [0] outlines Pulp's storage system requirements
in agnostic of a specific filesystem. That should have all the
necessary details regarding mount points, POSIX user permissions,
SELinux labels, etc.

For performance testing of the disk-heavy Pulp operations, I would
probably test sync, publish, re-sync, re-publish. I would also sync
from a large, on-premise high speed content source (ie: a local sync'd
copy of RHEL or EPEL). I would try to ensure the network could serve
the bits to Pulp during a sync or re-sync faster than the disk
operations of Pulp which would cause the Pulp disk speed to become the
rate limiting component. Good testing methodology should be used. For
example, have the system serving the hosted content Pulp is syncing
from be a separate system that the device under test (Pulp+glusterfs).

Also, maybe look through the importer and distributor options that are
being used to see what impact those have on performance.

It would be great if you share any benchmarks that you do with the
Pulp community.

- -pulp

- -Brian

On 10/29/2015 12:51 PM, Zak Berrie wrote:
> I’m experimenting with hyper-converged virtualization based on
> oVirt (RHEV) and Gluster.   In this configuration a small set of
> nodes provides both virtualization and storage services on each
> physical system.
> One of the workloads that I’m planning to run on this environment
> is Satellite 6.   I’m wondering if it might make sense to locate
> the pulp data directory (/var/lib/pulp) on glusterfs directly
> rather than inside of the VM image (which is in turn is served by
> gluster).  It seems to make sense to remove some layers if
> possible.
> I’m curious if anyone has already attempted to run pulp on top of
> glusterfs?
> Beyond that, if I were to perform some testing of different 
> configurations what do you think is a valid way to benchmark pulp 
> performance?
> Of course mongodb and PostgreSQL and MongoDB are monsters of their
> own… I’m working out ways to make sure that Mongo and Postgres will
> only run on fast SSD-based storage but that’s for another list.
> Thanks.
> -- Zak Berrie, RHCE (formerly Zak Brown) Solutions Architect Red
> Hat, Inc. (310) 293-1949 http://bit.ly/zb-bluejeans
> <https://bluejeans.com/3102931949/browser>
> _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing
> list Pulp-list at redhat.com 
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Version: GnuPG v2


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list