On 28 October 2015 at 17:03, Krutika Dhananjay <[email protected]> wrote:
> So sharding also helps with better disk utilization in > distributed-replicated volumes for large files (like VM images). > .. There are other long-term benefits one could reap from using sharding: for > instance, for someone who might want to use tiering in VM store use-case, > having sharding will be beneficial in terms of only migrating the shards > between hot and cold tiers, as opposed to moving large files in full, even > if only a small portion of the file is changed/accessed. :) > Interesting points, thanks. > > >> Yes. So Paul Cuzner and Satheesaran who have been testing sharding here >> have reported better write performance with 512M shards. I'd be interested >> to know what you feel about performance with relatively larger shards >> (think 512M). >> > > Seq Read speeds basically tripled, and seq writes improved to the limit of > the network connection. > > > OK. And what about the data heal performance with 512M shards? > Satisfactory? > Easily satisfactory, a bit slower than the 4MB shard but still way faster than a full multi GB file heal :) Something I have noticed, is that the heal info (gluster volume heal <datastore> info) can be very slow to return, as in many 10's of seconds - is there a way to speed that up? It would be every useful if there was a command that quickly gave summary/progress status, e.g "There are <X> shards to be healed" -- Lindsay
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
