On 11/18/2014 04:14 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:36:19 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 11/18/2014 01:17 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
On 18 November 2014 17:40, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com>
wrote:
However given the files are tens of GB in size, won't it thrash my
network?
Yes you are right. I wonder why thrashing of the network is never
reported till now.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not :) But from what I've observed,
sync operations seem to self throttle, I've not seen them use more than 50% of
bandwidth, and given most setups have a dedicated network for the servers
maybe they just don't notice if it takes a while?
No, I was not being sarcastic :-). I am genuinely wondering why it is
not reported till now. May be Joe will have more inputs there, that is
the reason I CCed him.
I still need to think about how best to solve this problem.
Setup a array of queues for self healing, sorted by size maybe?
Let me tell you a bit more about this issue:
there are two processes which heal the VM images:
1) self-heal-daemon. 2) Mount process.
Self-heal daemon heals one VM image at a time. But mount process
triggers self-heals for all the opened files(VM image is nothing but an
opened file from filesystem's perspective) when a brick goes down and
comes backup.
Thanks, interesting to know.
So we need to come up with a scheme to throttle self-heals
on the mount point to prevent this issue. I will update you as soon as I
come up with a fix. This should not be hard to do. Need some time to
choose the best approach. Thanks a lot for bringing up this issue.
Thanks you for looking at it!
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
