On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:04:02AM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
This has probably been discussed before, but since I'm new on the
list I hope You have patience with me.
There are some tuning hints in this post:
http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2012-February/009584.html
although
Hello,
Im testing performance on a small basic repplicated cluster 2 servers 8
clients.
The clients have an old solution with a regular NFS mount and the data from
it has been copied to the Gfs mount.
Doing simple comparison with a time find /mnt/gfs/datadir -type f -mtime
-2 command
There are
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:43:27AM +0100, Carl Boberg wrote:
time find /mnt/nfs/datadir -type f -mtime -2
real 2m0.067s --
user 0m0.030s
sys 0m0.252s
The -mtime -2 is forcing gluster to do a stat() on every file, and this
makes gluster do a self-heal operation where it needs to
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:41:30PM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
So next is back to the four-node setup you had before. I would expect that
to perform about the same.
So would I expect too. But;
# time dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=2 of=/gluster/testfile
2+0 records in
2+0
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Brian Candler wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:41:30PM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
So next is back to the four-node setup you had before. I would expect that
to perform about the same.
So would I expect too. But;
# time dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=2
I'd like to point out that I've had similar experience to Carl but without
the +mtime in my finds and we did try Gluster's NFS. At one point recently
I threw together a spreadsheet documenting the differences that also
includes details regarding the various things I tried as I compared a
direct
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Samuli Heinonen wrote:
2.3.2012 15:33, Harald Hannelius kirjoitti:
The pattern for me starts to look like this;
max-write-speed ~= link speed/nodes.
Have you tried tuning performance.io-thread-count setting? More information
about that can be found at
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:25:18PM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
I'll have to test with just a two-way replica, and see if I get
better performance out of that. I'm gonna loose the capability to
have one node at the other site then
Ah... are these nodes separated by a WAN? Synchronous
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Brian Candler wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:25:18PM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
I'll have to test with just a two-way replica, and see if I get
better performance out of that. I'm gonna loose the capability to
have one node at the other site then
Ah... are these
I'd try putting all hostnames in /etc/hosts. Also, can you post ping times
between each host ?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Harald Hannelius harald.hannel...@arcada.fi
wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Brian Candler wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:25:18PM +0200, Harald Hannelius wrote:
10 matches
Mail list logo