On 27/06/2014, at 8:39 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote: > On Thursday 26 June 2014 12:52:13 Dan Lambright wrote: >> I don't think brick splitting implemented by LVM would affect directory >> browsing any more than adding an additional brick would, >> > > Yes, splitting a brick in LVM should be the same than adding a normal brick. > The main problem I see is that adding normal bricks decrease the browsing > speed, so splitting bricks will also degrade it. > > I've seen a configuration with only 14 bricks (7 replica-2 sets) where > browsing was not possible: directory listings with no more than a few hundreds > of files took up to a minute or even more if the directory wasn't accessed for > a long time. This is not usable. > > This wasn't a hardware problem: servers had 2 CPU's with 6 cores each and > hyperthreading (total 24 cores), 64 GB of RAM and Infiniband network. File > system was formated using XFS. > > I fear what can happen if the number of bricks grow considerably by splitting > without solving this problem before... Sounds like a metadata server would fix this! ( Yes, this is trolling hard. Ignore. ;> ) + Justin -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
