if I should be able to get write speeds that are more comparable to the
>> NFS mount...
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion I might have caused with my first email... It isn't
>> 25x slower. It is roughly 30% slower for the writes...
>>
>>
>> David
>&
Sorry for the confusion I might have caused with my first email... It
> isn't 25x slower. It is roughly 30% slower for the writes...
>
>
> David
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Vijay Bellur"
> To: "David F. Robinson" ;
> gluste
--- Original Message --
From: "Vijay Bellur"
To: "David F. Robinson" ;
gluster-devel@gluster.org
Sent: 8/6/2014 12:48:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Fw: Re: Corvid gluster testing
On 08/06/2014 12:11 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
I have been testing some of the fixes that Pran
and send in the results...
Sorry for the confusion...
David
-- Original Message --
From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri"
To: "Anand Avati"
Cc: "David F. Robinson" ; "Gluster Devel"
Sent: 8/6/2014 9:51:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Fw: Re: Co
On 08/07/2014 07:18 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
It would be worth checking the perf numbers without -o acl (in case it
was enabled, as seen in the other gid thread). Client side -o acl
mount option can have a negative impact on performance because of the
increased number of up-calls from FUSE for a
It would be worth checking the perf numbers without -o acl (in case it was
enabled, as seen in the other gid thread). Client side -o acl mount option
can have a negative impact on performance because of the increased number
of up-calls from FUSE for access().
Thanks
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:26 P
On 08/07/2014 06:48 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
mailto:pkara...@redhat.com>> wrote:
We checked this performance with plain distribute as well and on
nfs it gave 25 minutes where as on nfs it gave around 90 minutes
after disabli
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> We checked this performance with plain distribute as well and on nfs it
> gave 25 minutes where as on nfs it gave around 90 minutes after disabling
> throttling in both situations.
>
This sentence is very confusing. Can you please
hi Avati,
We checked this performance with plain distribute as well and on nfs
it gave 25 minutes where as on nfs it gave around 90 minutes after
disabling throttling in both situations. I was wondering if any of you
guys know what could contribute to this difference.
Pranith
On 08/07/2014
Seems like heavy FINODELK contention. As a diagnostic step, can you try
disabling eager-locking and check the write performance again (gluster
volume set $name cluster.eager-lock off)?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David F. Robinson <
david.robin...@corvidtec.com> wrote:
> Forgot to attach p
On 08/06/2014 12:11 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
I have been testing some of the fixes that Pranith incorporated into the
3.5.2-beta to see how they performed for moderate levels of i/o. All of
the stability issues that I had seen in previous versions seem to have
been fixed in 3.5.2; however, th
I have been testing some of the fixes that Pranith incorporated into the
3.5.2-beta to see how they performed for moderate levels of i/o. All of
the stability issues that I had seen in previous versions seem to have
been fixed in 3.5.2; however, there still seem to be some significant
performan
Forgot to attach profile info in previous email. Attached...
David
-- Original Message --
From: "David F. Robinson"
To: gluster-devel@gluster.org
Sent: 8/5/2014 2:41:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Corvid gluster testing
I have been testing some of the fixes that Pranith incorporated into
th
13 matches
Mail list logo
