Any other thoughts on why i'm seeing double the inbound traffic? We're have a large increase in site traffic the last few weeks and my out bound traffic has increase to almost 400mbit/sec which has translated to 800mbit of backend gluster traffic. I'm basically at the limit of gigabit ethernet unless i do bounding. Ideas on how to fix this? thanks, liam On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Liam Slusser <lslusser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Mark Mielke<mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/17/2009 08:06 AM, Shehjar Tikoo wrote: >>> >>> For a start, we've aimed at getting apache and unfs3 to work with booster. >>> The functional support for both in booster is complete in >>> 2.0.6 release. >>> >>> For a list of system calls supported by booster, please see: >>> http://www.gluster.org/docs/index.php/BoosterConfiguration >>> >>> There can be applications which need un-boosted syscalls also to be >>> usable over GlusterFS. For such a scenario we have two ways booster >>> can be used. Both approaches are described at the page linked above >>> but in short, you're right in thinking that when the un-supported >>> syscalls are also needed to go over FUSE, we are, as you said, leaking >>> or redirecting calls over the FUSE mount point. >>> >> >> Hi Shehjar: >> >> That's fine, I think, as long as it is recognized that trapping system call >> open() as booster is implemented today probably does not trap fopen() on >> Linux. If apache and unfs3 always call open() directly, and you are trapping >> this, then your purpose is being served. >> >> I was kind of hoping you had found a way around --disable-hidden-plt, so I >> could steal the idea from you. Too bad. :-) >> >> Cheers, >> mark >> >> -- >> Mark Mielke<mark@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > Just a FYI - I am not using booster at all on our feed boxes, this is > just straight fuse and the glusterfs process [with the box we're > seeing the traffic doubling on]. > > liam >
