Hi Zooko, Better late than never, I just found your email in the already-read-but-not-yet-responded list ;)
On 08/04/2010 04:23 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: > What's the next step? I still don't know exactly what the UX would be > for this feature. Would you have a flat file containing a list of > serverids followed by categories like this: This list should probably get synced from the introducer > # serverid category:id, category:id, category:id, ... > alt6cjddwfnwrnct4lx2ypwricrgtoam colo:us-west-1a, rack:5, chassis:3 > cufg4m4c7bfujnf5tkhjdazicn7ifkae colo:us-west-1b, rack:1, chassis:1 > e5itfysbe3qeqgzflxdnm6ypraufj6vj colo:singapore-1, rack:1, chassis:1 > fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 colo:singapore-1, rack:1, chassis:2 > > and would the server selection algorithm automatically use the > following as its highest-priority requirement: "spread the shares as > evenly as possible among the different numbers of each category"? And > if there were more than one category would it treat each successive > one as the next-highest-priority after the previous priorities were > satisfied? > >> One of the current deployment I did is a grid of 3 servers, each with 24 >> SATA disks. One Tahoe-LAFS storage node per disk and each server is located >> in a different datacenter. > > Sweet! How is it working? Could you give us some problem reports, > success reports, benchmarks? :-) Enough of problem reports in my previous mail, now on to the quick benchmark results. These operations were run directly on a Tahoe-LAFS gateway running release 1.8.0 on one of the three big servers. Uploading a single 100 MB file takes 277 seconds, that's about 2.9 Mbps. Downloading the same file takes 351 seconds, about 2.3 Mbps. > I've never seen real production use of K and M values that large. > Everyone always uses the default M=10. K=3. I did actually set K=15 > and M=30-something for a while on a test grid that had 15 live > servers. It worked okay. If you try setting something like M=72, K=22, > H=70 then please do run measurements of performance and do please > report your results to this list! :-) This makes me wonder if Kyle Markley's benchmark script could easily be run on an existing grid to benchmarks typical operations such download, upload, check and repair on a single big file, multiple small files, and so? François _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
