n you send the Gluster error log from one of the affected storage
> servers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> -->
> Craig Carl
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Gluster
>
> --
> *From: *"Daniel Goolsby"
> *To: *gluster-us.
On Thursday 21 October 2010 wrote Daniel Goolsby:
> I seem to have some kind of caching issue. I have a process that will
> create hundreds of directories, then immediately spawn a parallel process
> across multiple nodes. The job ends of failing because some of the nodes
> cannot see the directo
aig Carl
Senior Systems Engineer
Gluster
From: "Daniel Goolsby"
To: gluster-users@gluster.org
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:28:10 AM
Subject: [Gluster-users] caching.
I seem to have some kind of caching issue. I have a process that will
create hundreds of directories, then i
I seem to have some kind of caching issue. I have a process that will
create hundreds of directories, then immediately spawn a parallel process
across multiple nodes. The job ends of failing because some of the nodes
cannot see the directories that the first process created. If I wait a few
minu
I'll second that question. Is there a way to get Gluster to see the
same cache benefit that direct filesystem or NFS enjoys?
Jeremy
On 4/2/2010 2:38 AM, Jon Swanson wrote:
Yeah, obviously it's not actually writing to physical disks. I'm
assuming that because it's a small file size (32GB),
Yeah, obviously it's not actually writing to physical disks. I'm
assuming that because it's a small file size (32GB), most of that is
just hitting the filesystem cache.
What i'm curious about is why Gluster is not seeing similar benefits
from filesystem cache.
It is getting /some/ benefit:
[
Hello,
First off, thanks again for providing gluster. Awesome project.
This is a n00bish question. I thought that gluster goes through the VFS
like any other filesystem, which is where the most of the filesystem
caching takes place. (Somewhat Simplified)
I'm seeing a major difference in ben
