Hi,
The Gluster community is pleased to announce the release of Gluster
6.9 (packages available at [1]).
Release notes for the release can be found at [2].
Major changes, features and limitations addressed in this release:
None
Note:
We will be doing one more release for the version 6, post
Thank you !!!
We are going to try to run some experiments as well in the coming weeks.
Assuming I don't get re-routed, which often happens, I'll share if we
notice anything in our work load.
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 07:41:56PM +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
>
> 06.05.2020 19:15, Erik Jacobson
06.05.2020 19:15, Erik Jacobson пишет:
It's been working pretty
well at 1500 MTU so far. If the only issue is less throughput, that may
be a price we can pay since we're not bandwidth bound right now.
I think that fragmentation offload on nics makes jumbo frames not very
useful.
As I said
> On the other side allow jumbo frames and change mtu on even hundreds on
> nodes is extremely simple,
>
> you can just test it. I don't see "bunch of extra work" here, just use ssh
> and some scripting or something like ansible...
Our issue is we decided to simplify the configuration in our
06.05.2020 18:09, Erik Jacobson пишет:
"It is inconvenient for us to use MTU 9K for our gluster servers for
various reasons. We typically have bonded 10G interfaces.
We use distribute/replicate and gluster NFS for compute nodes.
My understanding is the negative to using 1500 MTU is just less
On 15/12/2018 13:46, Diego Remolina wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Can you test the updated samba packages that the CentOS
> team has built for FasTrack?
>
> A NOTE has been added to this issue.
>
> --
> (0033351) pgreco (developer) -
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:10 PM Erik Jacobson wrote:
> It is inconvenient for us to use MTU 9K for our gluster servers for
> various reasons. We typically have bonded 10G interfaces.
>
> We use distribute/replicate and gluster NFS for compute nodes.
>
> My understanding is the negative to using
Dear List,
same question and same setup from my side.
Regards,
Felix
On 06/05/2020 16:09, Erik Jacobson wrote:
It is inconvenient for us to use MTU 9K for our gluster servers for
various reasons. We typically have bonded 10G interfaces.
We use distribute/replicate and gluster NFS for
It is inconvenient for us to use MTU 9K for our gluster servers for
various reasons. We typically have bonded 10G interfaces.
We use distribute/replicate and gluster NFS for compute nodes.
My understanding is the negative to using 1500 MTU is just less
efficient use of the network. Are there
Hi everyone,
So because upgrading introduces additional problems, does this means I should
stick with 5.x even if it is EOL?
Or what is a "safe" version to upgrade to?
Regards,
Mabi
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:44 AM, Artem Russakovskii
wrote:
> Hi Hari,
>
>
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 11:59 +0100, lejeczek wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2018 13:46, Diego Remolina wrote:
> > Matt,
> >
> > Can you test the updated samba packages that the CentOS
> > team has built for FasTrack?
> >
> > A NOTE has been added to this issue.
> >
> >
Hi,
We understand the concern about facing a bad migration.
Most of this is because of the logging issues.
These log messages are harmless and are necessary for debugging purposes.
We have just backported the fix to the release branches.
This fix will reduce this particular log to debug, so it
12 matches
Mail list logo
