On 02/21/2011 12:47 PM, Joe Landman wrote:
On 02/21/2011 12:45 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:54 AM, paul simpson wrote:
hi fabricio,
many thanks for your input. indeed i am using xfs - but that seems
to be
mentioned in the gluster docs without any mention of problems. we
benchmarked xfs vs ext4 - and found that xfs to be much better at
dealing
with the bulk of our data - hi-def frames ~3-10M each - and large
geometry/particle/volume files. 10M-200M. so, i'm keen to hear from
anyone
abotu xfs's suitability for gluster storage...
as for file size; my understanding is that a distributed file system
performance only really kicks in when your dealing with large>1M files.
however, is dealing with small files meant to be unreliable with
locking/access errors?
We had trouble with reliability for small, actively-accessed files on a
distribute-replicate volume in both GlusterFS 3.11 and 3.12. It seems
that the replicated servers would eventually get out of sync with each
other on these kinds of files. For a while, we dropped replication and
only ran the volume as distributed. This has worked reliably for the
past week or so without any errors that we were seeing before: no such
file, invalid argument, etc.
Steve:
As a sanity check, do test your date stamps across the servers. We
found *significant* issues when they drifted.
Thanks, Joe. Both servers use NTP against the same subnet router so
it's unlikely that they had a time discrepancy. I just checked the two
servers and their times are consistent with each other at the moment.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
