On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:20:22PM +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:
> And your (or your users) expirience of nfs/smb over gluster will
> mostly be influenced by the seek-time for small files or the
> accesses of many users, not the transfer-time of single-files for
> single users. Mirroring across netwo
On 03/15/2012 09:46 AM, Sean Fulton wrote:
> In a case where four client nodes need equal read/write access to the
> data, is it better to have four Gluster nodes in a replicated
> configuration with each mounting the gluster volume locally, or having
> TWO Gluster server nodes with the four cli
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0500, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> I'm really hoping for something like a pfSense distro that wraps
> gluster up in a nice web GUI. It'd be great to have an
> appliance-like OS that just works out of the box with a couple
> clicks. But that takes time, I understan
On 16.03.2012 20:02, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm gonna keep working with Gluster and see if I can get the
performance. Recently I converted to using Linux Raid 10 on 4 1TB drives
and now I'm getting 310 MB/s write speed to my brick using "dd" test.
That's looking better and getting clo
On 3/16/12 10:30 AM, Marcus Bointon wrote:
On 16 Mar 2012, at 00:33, David Coulson wrote:
Is there a FAQ/document somewhere with optimal mkfs and mount options for ext4
and xfs? Is xfs still the 'desired' filesystem for gluster bricks?
Something that I think would really help gluster is to h
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:30:11 +0100
Marcus Bointon wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2012, at 00:33, David Coulson wrote:
>
> > Is there a FAQ/document somewhere with optimal mkfs and mount
> > options for ext4 and xfs? Is xfs still the 'desired' filesystem for
> > gluster bricks?
>
> Something that I think wo
On 16 Mar 2012, at 00:33, David Coulson wrote:
> Is there a FAQ/document somewhere with optimal mkfs and mount options for
> ext4 and xfs? Is xfs still the 'desired' filesystem for gluster bricks?
Something that I think would really help gluster is to have an online
configuration builder along
Is there a FAQ/document somewhere with optimal mkfs and mount options
for ext4 and xfs? Is xfs still the 'desired' filesystem for gluster bricks?
On 3/15/12 3:22 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:09:28PM -0500, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
get 50-60 MB/s transfer speeds tops when
On 3/15/12 9:46 AM, Sean Fulton wrote:
In a case where four client nodes need equal read/write access to the
data, is it better to have four Gluster nodes in a replicated
configuration with each mounting the gluster volume locally, or having
TWO Gluster server nodes with the four clients mounti
One question I have:
In a case where four client nodes need equal read/write access to the
data, is it better to have four Gluster nodes in a replicated
configuration with each mounting the gluster volume locally, or having
TWO Gluster server nodes with the four clients mounting the volume fro
On 03/15/2012 09:20 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
> I pointed out the problem on the list, and was told that no one strategy can
> fit every usage case. This one is particularly tuned to Samba (which writes
> 128K past the end of the file then back-fills with data). It was suggested
> that glusterfsd
On 03/15/2012 12:09 AM, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> After tweaking settings the best we could, we were able to copy files
> from Mac and Win7 desktops across the network but only able to get 50-60
> MB/s transfer speeds tops when sending large files (> 2GB) to gluster.
> When copying a directory o
On 03/15/2012 03:22 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have any experience with replicated volumes, but the
> raw glusterfs protocol is very fast: a single brick which is a 12-disk raid0
> stripe can give 500MB/sec easily over 10G ethernet without any tuning.
BTW, there are socket-le
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:51:39PM +, Paul Simpson wrote:
>On 15 March 2012 12:49, Fabricio <[1]fcann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Em 15-03-2012 09:24, Sabuj Pattanayek escreveu:
>
> Striped volumes are unfortunately broken on top of XFS at the
> moment:
> [2]http://oss.sg
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Paul Simpson wrote:
> same - XFS works v well for us too. maybe this is just a stripe issue?
No, it doesn't report the size of sparse files correctly:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00225.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6940516/create-sparse
same - XFS works v well for us too. maybe this is just a stripe issue?
On 15 March 2012 12:49, Fabricio wrote:
> Em 15-03-2012 09:24, Sabuj Pattanayek escreveu:
>
> Striped volumes are unfortunately broken on top of XFS at the moment:
>>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/**xfs/2012-03/msg00161.htm
Em 15-03-2012 09:24, Sabuj Pattanayek escreveu:
Striped volumes are unfortunately broken on top of XFS at the moment:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-03/msg00161.html
Yea, I found this out after copying several million files into a
stripe that XFS doesn't report the size of sparse files co
> Striped volumes are unfortunately broken on top of XFS at the moment:
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-03/msg00161.html
Yea, I found this out after copying several million files into a
stripe that XFS doesn't report the size of sparse files correctly.
Lost a week of time on the copy after
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:09:28PM -0500, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> get 50-60 MB/s transfer speeds tops when sending large files (> 2GB)
> to gluster. When copying a directory of small files, we get <= 1
> MB/s performance!
>
> My question is ... is this right? Is this what I should expect from
>
All,
For our project, we bought 8 new Supermicro servers. Each server is a
quad-core Intel cpu with 2U chassis supporting 8 x 7200 RPM Sata drives.
To start out, we only populated 2 x 2TB enterprise drives in each
server and added all 8 peers with their total of 16 drives as bricks to
our g
20 matches
Mail list logo
