On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Bipin Kunal <bku...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Can someone explain me the importance of "direct-io-mode"? > What I understand is enabling "direct-io-mode" will use FUSE cache and > bypass kernel/page cache. > > Will it be beneficial to enable "direct-io-mode" or it will have adverse > effect when there is very small files workload such as dovecot and other > mail boxes. > As use case here is of mail boxes, it will be write once and mostly read > once. > > Mailbox workload involves mainly 2 major posix semantics. 1. Locking 2. Dependency on rename(). And later the challenge of small files. In distributed systems both 1 and 2 mentioned above are harder problem to achieve without performance compromise (ref: CAP). This makes it harder problem to solve for GlusterFS usecase. Well, I am hopeful of already proposed gfid based hashing in DHT-next algorithm to solve some of it, along with few locking enhancements people are planning by GlusterFS 4.0 timeframe, we can revisit this usecase. For the historic nostalgia, I went through the logs to figure out when did anyone first tried mailbox related workload with glusterfs, and seems 2008 is the answer [1] :-) Regards, Amar [1] - http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?24551 > -- > Thanks, > > Bipin Kunal > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
