On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:40:27PM +0100, Amon Ott wrote:
Now we should check, whether fuse_forget() is called at all during the
test. I would not assume blindly that it is.
Added a counter to fuse_forget():
[2010-03-26 15:34:31] N [fuse-bridge.c:3203:fuse_thread_proc] fuse:
unmounting
Hi,
Can I use Gluster Storage Platform to aggregate 2 or more storage
bricks and present them as a single volume to openfile storage
appliance?
--
Thanks Regards
Prashant N
http://openenter.blogspot.com
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Aurelien ROUGEMONT wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have lenny servers (up do date) with the 3.0.3 package installed
from sid. Whatever settings i have tried, i am getting these results
(afr/distribute/cache/nocache) :
r...@test4:/var/www# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=1 bs=1024
1+0
Krzysztof Strasburger wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:35:32PM +0530, Shehjar Tikoo wrote:
Krzysztof Strasburger wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:48:44AM +0530, Shehjar Tikoo wrote:
This is a known problem. See a previous email on the devel list about it
at:
On 26/03/2010 18:22, Ramiro Magallanes wrote:
You coud run the genfiles script simultaneuosly (my english is really
poor, we can change the subject of this mail for something like poor
performance and poor english xDDD) but its not like a thread aplication
(iozone rulez).
If I run 3 process of
Argh, the pain!
I can't believe I didn't see that. I'm sorry for wasting your time. (and
for the delayed reply, have been away)
I'll test this configuration in the next phase and report back.
thank you,
zé
On 03/22/2010 04:03 AM, Raghavendra G wrote:
Hi Jose,
There is a mistake in volume
Have you guys seen the wiki page -
http://www.gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/GlusterFS_2.0_Benchmark_Results_%28compared_with_NFS%29
- it would be interesting if you could replicate the Single GlusterFS
section to see how things have changed...
Ian
heh, don't forget the sync
:)
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Enos je...@ncsa.uiuc.edu wrote:
Got a chance to run your suggested test:
##GLUSTER SINGLE DISK##
[r...@ac33 gjenos]# dd bs=4096 count=32768 if=/dev/zero of=./filename.test
32768+0 records in
I've already determined that sync brings the values at least to the
same order (gluster is about 75% of direct disk there). I could accept
that for the benefit of having a parallel fileystem.
What I'm actually trying to achieve now is exactly what leaving out the
sync yields in perceived
On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Olivier Le Cam wrote:
gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=1 bs=16
1+0 enregistrements lus
1+0 enregistrements écrits
16 bytes (1,6 GB) copied, 15,0147 s, 107 MB/s
gl2:/web-nunki# dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=1
10 matches
Mail list logo
