On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Gambit15 <dougti+glus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys, > I keep seeing different recommendations for the best shard sizes for VM > images, from 64MB to 512MB. > > What's the benefit of smaller v larger shards? > I'm guessing smaller shards are quicker to heal, but larger shards will > provide better sequential I/O for single clients? Anything else? > That's the main difference. And also smaller shards provide better brick utilization and distribution of IO in distributed-replicated volumes as opposed to larger shards. > > I also usually see "cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full" is generally > recommended in these cases. Why not "diff"? Is it simply to reduce CPU load > when there's plenty of excess network capacity? > That's correct. diff heal requires rolling checksum to be computed for every 128KB chunk of the file on both source and sink bricks, which is CPU intensive, potentially affecting IO traffic. -Krutika > > Thanks in advance, > Doug > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
