Re: [Gluster-users] used space not reclaimed on file delete
On 05/04/2014 12:15 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: Do you notice this discrepancy when you perform deletions on a glusterfs client mount? No. Deleting files directly from the glusterfs brick directories is not a recommended practice. Is there a "heal" mechanism for non-replicated bricks that could scan/fix directly deleted files? I have an app running on the server that can delete data. Would the best practice in this case be to mount the brick on the server and have the app talk that way? ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] used space not reclaimed on file delete
Hello, GlusterFS 3.4.3 client/servers Single server share When I delete a file that hasn't been hardlinked with glusterfs metadata I see used disk space decrease in df. If I delete a hardlinked file my disk space does not decrease. What's the discrepancy here? Yesterday I wiped out the share's .glusterfs directory and I reclaimed 350 GB of space. I need to find out what I'm doing wrong or if this is a GlusterFS issue. Thanks, Michael ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] GlusterFS performance
On 02/27/2013 07:34 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: What are your volume settings? Have you adjusted the cache sizes? Sorry.. I see your original post and the settings now. ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] GlusterFS performance
On 02/27/2013 04:36 AM, Nikita A Kardashin wrote: I am using 3.3.0. Now I remove volume and re-create it with 4-replica count (without distribution) and got 31.9 MB/s :( What are your volume settings? Have you adjusted the cache sizes? ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] horrible write performance after upgrade from 3.2 to 3.3
On 02/26/2013 01:50 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Any ideas on why write performance is suffering? This is really strange. After my e-mail I tested it again and I see normal speeds now. I have not touched my brick settings. If I can reproduce it I'll report back. ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] horrible write performance after upgrade from 3.2 to 3.3
I have a brick on a MD RAID5 array formatted with ext4 on a gigabit network. My brick is located at /srv/media. dd if=/dev/zero of=/srv/media/test.zero reports 150MB/sec dd reading reports 300MB/sec I have used iperf to verify it is not a network adapter issue. I get 1gbit/sec each way. On GlusterFS 3.2 my read and write performance was as expected. 100MB/sec each way. On GlusterFS 3.3, my read speed is still 100MB/sec but my write speed never exceeds 10MB/sec. It seems something is purposely throttling my writes like I'm on a 100mbit network. CPU usage on the server and client are around 25% during the transfer. No other processes are eating I/O. Any ideas on why write performance is suffering? gluster> volume info Volume Name: media Type: Distribute Volume ID: 990a5d58-f76c-405c-a7bf-096e70b9fed3 Status: Started Number of Bricks: 1 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 10.0.0.1:/srv/media Options Reconfigured: auth.allow: 10.0.0.* nfs.disable: On performance.cache-size: 128MB performance.write-behind-window-size: 128MB Thanks, Michael ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
