[Gluster-users] self-heal performance regression in 3.6
Hi all, Has anybody observed a performance regression in the self-heal process between 3.4 and 3.6 gluster releases ? The best self-heal performance I achieved was using 3.4.2 and self-heal-window-size=4” on a large amount of data (several TB) with a mix of small and large files (from 100KB to 4MB). Using self-heal-window-size default value (16) on 3.4.2 or any setting (4 or 16) with 3.6.2 lead to 33% (up to 50%) slowdown compared to the best performance baseline with the same dataset. With several TB of data, that requires many extra hours on 3.6.2 for the self-heal to complete. Other than self-heal-window-size parameter, is there any self-heal performance settings or speed-up tricks I could use either on 3.4 or 3.6 ? Any feedback appreciated. Best regards, Florent Monbillard ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] Self Heal Performance
How granular is glusterfs self heal with large vm images? (30GB-100GB). Some of the commentary I saw online seemed to think it was very slow and inefficient, implying that self heal involved resyncing entire files, rather than blocks. So, if in a replicated setup, a node goes down for a while, but the VM's keep running and writing to their image on the other nodes. What happens when the node comes back up? does it have to recopy the entire image from the other nodes or is it just the writes since it was down that have to be replicated? thanks, -- Lindsay ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
