using a combination of write-behind with io-threads (with option flush-behind on) prevents the wait of upto N-MB of data (where N is 'option cache-size NMB' of io-threads) avati 2008/2/28, nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxx <nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Is it possible to afr between two bricks in CA and NY with decent > response time with each system? The hosts are configured as client and > server, but so far my tests have been with afr on the client side only. > > In testing I am getting very slow write times, my hope was with AFR was > writes / reeds would be close to the speed of local since I am using the > NUFA scheduler in the client. > > Should I move AFR and NUFA to the server rather then the client? Ideally, > writes would hit the local box at its write speed and start transfer data > to the remove AFR until finished no slowing down local response time. Now > I understand that may not be possible, but what about at least having > say an 8 meg window so the system would be much more responsive with > smaller files, yet not get stuck with two sites modifying the same file. > > Thanks for the help, there has got to be a better solution then > YottaYotta. > > ><> > Nathan Stratton > nathan at robotics.net > http://www.robotics.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > -- If I traveled to the end of the rainbow As Dame Fortune did intend, Murphy would be there to tell me The pot's at the other end.
