Anand Avati wrote:
I'm having a bit of a puzzle here.
I've setup a 1 server, 1 client test. The server exports 4 bricks and a
namespace volume, and the client unifies those (see specs at the
bottom).
The namespace directory actually sits on the first partition, so I would
expect that partition to show twice the number of consumed inodes
compared to
the other partitions. But what I'm seeing instead is a threefold
consumption:
That is a bit of wrong math.
No of inodes in NS = No of directories in any child + No of files in all
children.
It is not directly proportional to any one child.
You're right. I did the math, and it works out exactly. I was just surprised
that my ns+brick used almost exactly 3 times as much inodes as the other
bricks, but that's just a coincidence, due to my directory/file ratio.
The namespace should be put on a partition where you can create LOT of
small files. Generally XFS or reiserfs will do a good job. If you are
using ext3, format it with a very small block size.
Yes, I will be moving the ns volume to a dedicated disk once I get the space
for it. For now, the 488M inodes should be sufficient.
I'm actually moving back from xfs to ext3, with smaller partitions. We had big
problems with xfs after a severe power outage. Its repair requirements are
unrealistic: for a 8TB partition, you'd need a box with something like 24GB of
ram, plus 2 weeks downtime. We can't afford either, which is why we're
switching to glusterfs on ext3.
Putting the namespace on xfs is still a viable option, I guess. It depends on
how fast the amount of content grows.
Anyway, thanks for making me look closer, and understand what actually goes on!
Rhesa
