By the way, try to capture the traffic on the systems and compare if only 
specific packages are not delivered to the destination.
Overall JF won't give you a 2-digit improvement, so in your case I would switch 
to 1500 MTU.
Best Regards,Strahil Nikolov 
    I already updated the firmware of the NICs few weeks ago. The switch 
firmware is up to date. I already changed the whole switch to a 
completely different model without effect before (maybe 6 months ago). 
There are no other systems which are using jumbo frames attached to the 

Am 18.09.2022 21:07 schrieb Strahil Nikolov:
> We are currently shooting in the dark...
> If possible update the Firmware of the NICs and FW of the switch .
> Have you tried if other systems (on the same switch) have issues with
> the Jumbo Frames ?
> Best Regards,
> Strahil Nikolov
>> Yes, i did test the ping with a jumbo frame mtu and it worked
>> without
>> problems. There is no firewall between the storage nodes and the
>> hypervisors. They are using the same layer 2 subnet, so there is
>> only
>> the switch in between. On the switch jumbo frames for the specific
>> wlan
>> is enabled.
>> I also increased the tx and rx queue length, without succes in
>> relation
>> to the problem.
>> Am 17.09.2022 10:39 schrieb Strahil Nikolov:
>>> Usually that kind of problems could be on many places.
>>> When you set the MTU to 9000, did you test with ping and the "Do
>> not
>>> fragment" Flag ?
>>> If there is a device on the path that is not configured (or
>> doesn't
>>> support MTU9000) , it will fragment all packets and that could
>> lead to
>>> excessive device CPU consumption. I have seen many firewalls to
>> not
>>> use JF by default.
>>> ping <IP/HOSTNAME from brick definition> -M do -s 8972
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Strahil Nikolov
>>> В петък, 16 септември 2022 г., 22:24:14 ч.
>>> Гринуич+3, Gionatan Danti <>
>> написа:
>>> Il 2022-09-16 18:41 ha scritto:
>>>> I have made extensive load tests in the last few days and figured
>>> out
>>>> it's definitely a network related issue. I changed from jumbo
>> frames
>>>> (mtu 9000) to default mtu of 1500. With a mtu of 1500 the problem
>>>> doesn't occur. I'm able to bump the io-wait of our gluster
>> storage
>>>> servers to the max possible values of the disks without any error
>> or
>>>> connection loss between the hypervisors or the storage nodes.
>>>> As mentioned in multiple gluster best practices it's recommended
>> to
>>>> use jumbo frames in gluster setups for better performance. So I
>>> would
>>>> like to use jumbo frames in my datacenter.
>>>> What could be the issue here?
>>> I would try with a jumbo frame setting of 4074 (or 4088) bytes.
>>> Regards.
>>> --
>>> Danti Gionatan
>>> Supporto Tecnico
>>> Assyoma S.r.l. -
>>> email: -
>>> GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Community Meeting Calendar:

Schedule -
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
Gluster-users mailing list

Reply via email to