My base filesystem has 40-TB and the tar takes 19 minutes. I copied over 10-TB and it took the tar extraction from 1-minute to 7-minutes. My suspicion is that it is related to number of files and not necessarily file size. Shyam is looking into reproducing this behavior on a redhat system. David (Sent from mobile) =============================== David F. Robinson, Ph.D. President - Corvid Technologies 704.799.6944 x101 [office] 704.252.1310 [cell] 704.799.7974 [fax] David.Robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.corvidtechnologies.com > On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Justin Clift <justin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2015, at 12:31, David F. Robinson <david.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Some time ago I had a similar performance problem (with 3.4 if I remember correctly): a just created volume started to work fine, but after some time using it performance was worse. Removing all files from the volume didn't improve the performance again. >> >> I guess my problem is a little better depending on how you look at it. If I date the data from the volume, the performance goes back to that of an empty volume. I don't have to delete the .glusterfs entries to regain my performance. I only have to delete the data from the mount point. > > Interesting. Do you have somewhat accurate stats on how much data (eg # of entries, size > of files) was in the data set that did this? > > Wondering if it's repeatable, so we can replicate the problem and solve. :) > > + 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://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
