On 7 October 2014 08:56, Jeff Darcy <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't think of a good reason for such a steep drop-off in GlusterFS. > Sure, performance should degrade somewhat due to fragmenting, but not > suddenly. It's not like Lustre, which would do massive preallocation > and fall apart when there was no longer enough space to do that. It > might be worth measuring average latency at the local-FS level, to see > if the problem is above or below that line.
Happens like clockwork for us. The moment we get alerts saying the file system has hit 90%, we get a flood of support tickets about performance. It happens to a lesser degree on standard CentOS NAS units running XFS we have around the place. But again, I see the same sort of thing on any file system (vendor supplied, self-built, OS and FS agnostic). And yes, it's measurable (Munin graphs show it off nicely). -Dan _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
