Re: [Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

2011-01-15 Thread Rudi Ahlers
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Jacob Shucart wrote: > For web hosting it is best to put user generated content(images, etc) on > Gluster but to leave application files like PHP files on the local disk. > This is because a single application file request could result in 20 other > file requests s

[Gluster-users] df causes hang

2011-01-15 Thread Joe Warren-Meeks
Hey guys, I've been using glusterfs to share a volume between two webservers happily for quite a while. However, for some reason, they've got into a bit of a state such that typing 'df -k' causes both to hang, resulting in a loss of service for42 seconds. I see the following messages in the

Re: [Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

2011-01-15 Thread Joe Landman
On 01/15/2011 04:18 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: So what can one use for webhosting purposes? We use XEN / KVM virtual machines, hosted on NAS devices but the NAS devices doesn't have an easy upgrade path. We literally have to rsync all the data to the new device and then shutdown all the machines on

Re: [Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

2011-01-15 Thread Pan, Henry
Hello Gluster Gurus, I'm trying to find out what performance data you could get while trying eDiscovery searching application in a namespace with over 3 billins small files on GlusterFS... Thanks & Good w/e Henry PAN Sr. Data Storage Eng/Adm Iron Mountain 650-962-6184 (o) 650-930-6544 (c) henr

Re: [Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

2011-01-15 Thread Joe Landman
On 01/15/2011 10:31 AM, Pan, Henry wrote: Hello Gluster Gurus, I'm trying to find out what performance data you could get while trying eDiscovery searching application in a namespace with over 3 billins small files on GlusterFS... Hmmm ... are you searching within the files or the file names f

[Gluster-users] Quick performance tests

2011-01-15 Thread Joe Landman
Given the discussion over the past few days, I did a quick-n-dirty test. Long-ish post, with data, pointers, etc. Gigabit connected server and client, 941 Mb/s (according to iperf) between the two. Untar 2.6.37 kernel source, drop caches before each run. 485 MB total untarred/uncompressed

Re: [Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

2011-01-15 Thread Anand Avati
> > > Sure, and all that applies equally to both NFS and gluster, yet in Max's > example NFS was ~50x faster than gluster for an identical small-file > workload. So what's gluster doing over and above what NFS is doing that's > taking so long, given that network and disk factors are equal? I'd buy

Re: [Gluster-users] Deleted files comes back

2011-01-15 Thread Anand Avati
This looks an issue in your setup. One of the clients has very likely not connected to both the servers. You say client volfile are exactly the same. Can you verify if DNS (or /etc/hosts entries) resolve consistent on all your client nodes? Avati On 14 January 2011 15:44, Georg Höllrigl wrote: