On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Hu Bert wrote:
> Well, over the weekend about 200GB were copied, so now there are
> ~400GB copied to the brick. That's far beyond a speed of 10GB per
> hour. If I copied the 1.6 TB directly, that would be done within max 2
> days. But with the self heal this will take at least 20 days minimum.
>
> Why is the performance that bad? No chance of speeding this up?
>
What kind of data do you have?
How many directories in the filesystem?
On average how many files per directory?
What is the depth of your directory hierarchy on average?
What is average filesize?
Based on this data we can see if anything can be improved. Or if there are
some
enhancements that need to be implemented in gluster to address this kind of
data layout
>
> 2018-07-20 9:41 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert :
> > hmm... no one any idea?
> >
> > Additional question: the hdd on server gluster12 was changed, so far
> > ~220 GB were copied. On the other 2 servers i see a lot of entries in
> > glustershd.log, about 312.000 respectively 336.000 entries there
> > yesterday, most of them (current log output) looking like this:
> >
> > [2018-07-20 07:30:49.757595] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3:
> > Completed data selfheal on 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6.
> > sources=0 [2] sinks=1
> > [2018-07-20 07:30:49.992398] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:52:__afr_selfheal_metadata_do]
> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing metadata selfheal on
> > 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6
> > [2018-07-20 07:30:50.243551] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3:
> > Completed metadata selfheal on 0d863a62-0dd8-401c-b699-2b642d9fd2b6.
> > sources=0 [2] sinks=1
> >
> > or like this:
> >
> > [2018-07-20 07:38:41.726943] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:52:__afr_selfheal_metadata_do]
> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing metadata selfheal on
> > 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba
> > [2018-07-20 07:38:41.855737] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-common.c:1724:afr_log_selfheal] 0-shared-replicate-3:
> > Completed metadata selfheal on 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba.
> > sources=[0] 2 sinks=1
> > [2018-07-20 07:38:44.755800] I [MSGID: 108026]
> > [afr-self-heal-entry.c:887:afr_selfheal_entry_do]
> > 0-shared-replicate-3: performing entry selfheal on
> > 9276097a-cdac-4d12-9dc6-04b1ea4458ba
> >
> > is this behaviour normal? I'd expect these messages on the server with
> > the failed brick, not on the other ones.
> >
> > 2018-07-19 8:31 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert :
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> sent this mail yesterday, but somehow it didn't work? Wasn't archived,
> >> so please be indulgent it you receive this mail again :-)
> >>
> >> We are currently running a replicate setup and are experiencing a
> >> quite poor performance. It got even worse when within a couple of
> >> weeks 2 bricks (disks) crashed. Maybe some general information of our
> >> setup:
> >>
> >> 3 Dell PowerEdge R530 (Xeon E5-1650 v3 Hexa-Core, 64 GB DDR4, OS on
> >> separate disks); each server has 4 10TB disks -> each is a brick;
> >> replica 3 setup (see gluster volume status below). Debian stretch,
> >> kernel 4.9.0, gluster version 3.12.12. Servers and clients are
> >> connected via 10 GBit ethernet.
> >>
> >> About a month ago and 2 days ago a disk died (on different servers);
> >> disk were replaced, were brought back into the volume and full self
> >> heal started. But the speed for this is quite... disappointing. Each
> >> brick has ~1.6TB of data on it (mostly the infamous small files). The
> >> full heal i started yesterday copied only ~50GB within 24 hours (48
> >> hours: about 100GB) - with
> >> this rate it would take weeks until the self heal finishes.
> >>
> >> After the first heal (started on gluster13 about a month ago, took
> >> about 3 weeks) finished we had a terrible performance; CPU on one or
> >> two of the nodes (gluster11, gluster12) was up to 1200%, consumed by
> >> the brick process of the former crashed brick (bricksdd1),
> >> interestingly not on the server with the failed this, but on the other
> >> 2 ones...
> >>
> >> Well... am i doing something wrong? Some options wrongly configured?
> >> Terrible setup? Anyone got an idea? Any additional information needed?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thx in advance :-)
> >>
> >> gluster volume status
> >>
> >> Volume Name: shared
> >> Type: Distributed-Replicate
> >> Volume ID: e879d208-1d8c-4089-85f3-ef1b3aa45d36
> >> Status: Started
> >> Snapshot Count: 0
> >> Number of Bricks: 4 x 3 = 12
> >> Transport-type: tcp
> >> Bricks:
> >> Brick1: gluster11:/gluster/bricksda1/shared
> >> Brick2: gluster12:/gluster/bricksda1/shared
> >> Brick3: gluster13:/gluster/bricksda1/shared
> >> Brick4: gluster11:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared
> >> Brick5: gluster12:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared
> >> Brick6: gluster13:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared
> >> Brick7: gluster11:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared
> >> Brick8:
