Hi, Since then I setup geo-replication to a volume composed of a single brick (no replication, no distribution), which seems to be complete / up to date (the LAST_SYNCED column in 'gluster volume geo-replication VOLUME SLAVE status detail' is only a few minutes ago), and interestingly the master bricks (remember the volume is 1 x 2 = 2) each still uses 89GB (according to 'df'), whereas the slave uses 61GB (df).
61GB is what I would expect and the same as a 'du -h' on the mounted volume (as NFS). For now as you can see my Gluster volume is small, but I want to be sure all is well before ramping it up. Why do the master bricks use 50% more space than I would have expected them to? Is there a way to find out where why that extra space is used and clear it? Thibault. On 12 Aug 2015 3:07 pm, "Thibault Godouet" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a replicated Gluster 3.7.3 volume composed of two bricks, each on a > different server. > > If I mount the volume as NFS (because it is a lot faster than FUSE for > du), and do a 'du -h' on this, it returns 56GB. > > Yet the disk usage on each brick is quite a lot higher: > > - a 'du -h' gives me 104GB, 99% (or more) of it being .glusterfs > > - a 'df -h' gives me 85GB (and there is nothing else on the partition) > > > > I'd be interested to hear if someone knows why du and df give me different > values, but even more interested to know why df reports 85GB rather than > close to 56GB (the actual size of the data in the volume). > > > > Is this expected? > > If not, is there a way to make it clear the extra space and go down to > 56GB disk usage on each brick? > > > > Thanks, > > Thibault. >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
